Seriousness US Health Care Plan - Page 3

pshrynk · 03-25-2010, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I understand that you are a provider and may see things differently, but I gotta tell ya' from the family end Medicare is a nightmare. coming into compliance with income vs. benefits vs. savings vs. allowances is NUTS! I've had to deal with it with 2 grandmothers and a mother in law. to make sure that everything is kosher the enrollee has to be one step out of the poor house. it is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen

Did you mean Medicaid? There is no income test for Medicare, but there is for 'Caid. It is far from a perfect scheme and don't wish to portray it as such. But it does exist and does help people who qualify. It just doesn't go far enough, and it is expensive the way it's run now, which leads to resistance to expansion.

recluse · 03-25-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

If you're not saying it's unconstitutional then why would the constitution stop them?

No criticism intended, just don't understand the logic there.

The post before mine said that several states filed suit, saying the bill is unconstitutional. No explanation of why. I don't believe that such claims will stop this bill, even if true. Do I believe it is? I can't say yet. Haven't read it. Okay?

Bilbo1967 · 03-25-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by recluse

The post before mine said that several states filed suit, saying the bill is unconstitutional. No explanation of why. I don't believe that such claims will stop this bill, even if true. Do I believe it is? I can't say yet. Haven't read it. Okay?

Yeah, sure.

pshrynk · 03-25-2010, 07:02 PM

The various attorneys general are filing on the basis of the procedures in the House to pass the bill. That is ultimately going ot fail because the Constitution states that the Congress shall make up its own rules of conduct.

They are also going forward with the argument that requiring someone to purchase anything is unconstitutional. This argument may get a bit more traction and it will be interesting to see how that is played out. What will most likely happen, however, is that it will slowly grind through the courts before getting to the SCOTUS. At that point, the system whill have been in play for quite a few years and then if the law is overturned, Congress wil probably take up ways to rescue the law.

I predict that this will happen no matter which party has the majority, since there are aspects of the law which are or will be very popular when they are rolled out. Other parts probably not so much, but there won't be a wholesale overturning, more than likely due to the way the system works.

Nakor · 03-25-2010, 07:32 PM

Okay, I misunderstood your point then. That said, I don't think a knock against the administration really serves well as a knock against the bill (some twist on an ad hominem perhaps? lol). And I have to say I kind of doubt they would break the constitution to achieve anything. (If they felt it was wrong they might try reform, but I doubt it. Especially in the current political climate.)

Most of my post was not directed at you, for the record, but just a comment on what I do see a lot of from some of the less kindly of comments -- and unfortunately, from a lot of journalists and pundits whose goal seems less to report the news than it is to push their political agenda (whether it be for or against).

I have to say that American politics have always seemed polarised to me. If you ask any given American what political "alignment" they have, the majority will probably answer either Democrat or Republican. If you were to ask the same question to random Canadians, I think you would find that the majority of us reject any political affiliation. It makes for a whole different political climate up here, because every time a new issue comes up the lines are redrawn and the "teams" change completely. There is a very, very little loyalty to political parties among non-politicians in Canada.

wodin · 03-25-2010, 09:50 PM

I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I just don’t understand how throwing a trillion dollars down a rabbit hole is supposed to reduce the deficit by a couple hundred billion dollars.

Could someone explain that to me please.

kindlekitten · 03-25-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Did you mean Medicaid? There is no income test for Medicare, but there is for 'Caid. It is far from a perfect scheme and don't wish to portray it as such. But it does exist and does help people who qualify. It just doesn't go far enough, and it is expensive the way it's run now, which leads to resistance to expansion.

the system that serves retirees... isn't that Medicare? I know in every instance the participants were required to spend a great deal of their savings (which was really all they had), before assistance would kick in

Quote:

Originally Posted by wodin

I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I just don’t understand how throwing a trillion dollars down a rabbit hole is supposed to reduce the deficit by a couple hundred billion dollars.

Could someone explain that to me please.

this is definetly a spendy administration

Laz116 · 03-25-2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

the system that serves retirees... isn't that Medicare? I know in every instance the participants were required to spend a great deal of their savings (which was really all they had), before assistance would kick in

this is definetly a spendy administration

How come. You in the USA spend 19% of you GDP (is it called that in your terms?) on health care. But still you're only average on life expectancy in the western world. At the same time somewhat 30 million of your citizens, not counting immigrants, remain uninsured.

Other countries maintain the same life expectancy rate only using 8-9 %.

Maybe big corporation isn't in everyones interest after all.

Laz116 · 03-25-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wodin

I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I just don’t understand how throwing a trillion dollars down a rabbit hole is supposed to reduce the deficit by a couple hundred billion dollars.

Could someone explain that to me please.

And what is the benefit of a system where corporations who are responsible only to their shareholders set the standard.

Every dime they earn, they have stolen from you. Seriously.

kindlekitten · 03-25-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz116

How come. You in the USA spend 19% of you GDP (is it called that in your terms?) on health care. But still you're only average on life expectancy in the western world. At the same time somewhat 30 million of your citizens, not counting immigrants, remain uninsured.

Other countries maintain the same life expectancy rate only using 8-9 %.

Maybe big corporation isn't in everyones interest after all.

among other things we have absolutely horrid dietary habits.

pietvo · 03-26-2010, 07:29 AM

Look at this chart: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healt...lthcare/933718

Spoon Man · 03-28-2010, 06:50 PM

Do you have a chart that compares the income of doctor's by country as well?

Nakor · 03-29-2010, 01:06 AM

Found one with a Google search. Be careful interpreting though, as various factors can affect how those costs should be read; percentage of specialists to GPs, cost of living, taxes and deductions, etc.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ountries-make/

The Straven · 03-29-2010, 03:35 AM

My two bits:

I'm coming to the conclusion that insurance is an extremely poor method of allocating health care. Insurance companies are a third party standing between patients and doctors. Worst are the for-profit corporations: they have no interest in patients' well being. There's more, but long story short I'm opposed to insurance as the means by which health care is extended (and worse, mandatory insurance).

On the other hand, I work for a large federal government agency, and I dread the idea of a big government-run program. Big government-run programs are wasteful. [blanket statement] The only way the federal government gets anything done is by throwing enough money at it. [/blanket statement] And again, you'd have a third party standing between patients and doctors. ...Hmm. The only form of government health care I might accept would be programs run by the states themselves. If a citizen didn't like a program he or she could always move. Competition of sorts.

P.S. GA Russell, you've pretty well described my situation. Thanks, well put.

pietvo · 03-29-2010, 04:14 AM

I don't think insurance is a poor method. For health care it is the same as for other risks, like insuring your house. There are risks that would ruin you if you had to pay the cost yourself. E.g. your house burning down, or you needing an expensive operation. But for low expenses it it is actually more expensive to insure them as you also have to pay the cost and profit of the insurance company.

There are two important aspects to make the insurance work well: there must be enough competition and it must be sufficiently regulated so that the companies cannot rip you off. (These aspects apply to most businesses I think.) The ripping off is especially important for people who have chronic diseases. I think health is so important an aspect of life that the decision about people's health should not be made by a commercial company. Therefore it is important that insurance companies shouldn't have the right to deny people solely because of their current health situation. Or otherwise their should be a fallback insurance, e.g. from the government for these. Of course the latter wouldn't be profitable and must be subsidized by the government from tax incomes or from a percentage of the income of the other insurance companies.

I don't think government programs by themselves are necessarily wasteful. But there are also mixed forms, like a private company where the shares are owned by the government. Then there isn't that shareholder's pressure to be only profitable at the expense of all other values. It can still be run biy managers that try to make the best out of it, including doing things at lowest cost. But the government can then put other objectives, like having to accept all sorts of customers, something that normal shareholders wouldn't be willing to accept, as these have profit as the major objective.

The insurance company where I have most of my insurances was originally founded as a pure `mutual', i.e. a group of people (in this case civil servants, teachers and similar) coming together putting money in a box, so to say, from where there risk expenses could be paid. No profit as objective, only covering the risks at the lowest possible cost. I don't know if it still works that way as they have merged with other companies. They are still one of the cheapest and have a good service. They don't sell through intermediaries which also saves money. I got mine when I started working at the university which had a contract with them.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Health Care Bill	GyGeek	Upload Help	4	04-28-2010 10:42 PM
Government Congress, U.S.: H.R. 3962 Health Care Reform Act. v1. 22 Mar 2010	GyGeek	ePub Books	1	03-23-2010 09:00 AM
During the health care proceedings, a sitting senator was seen reading a Kindle.	Ocean	News	6	09-23-2009 10:39 PM
Seriously thoughtful American Health Care	formerroadie	Lounge	177	09-10-2009 07:17 PM
Government-run Health Care	GlennD	Lounge	17	07-04-2009 08:35 AM

03-25-2010, 07:02 PM	#34
pshrynk Beepbeep n beebeep, yeah! Posts: 11,726 Karma: 8255450 Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin, aka America's IceBox Device: iThingie, KmkII, I miss Zelda!	The various attorneys general are filing on the basis of the procedures in the House to pass the bill. That is ultimately going ot fail because the Constitution states that the Congress shall make up its own rules of conduct. They are also going forward with the argument that requiring someone to purchase anything is unconstitutional. This argument may get a bit more traction and it will be interesting to see how that is played out. What will most likely happen, however, is that it will slowly grind through the courts before getting to the SCOTUS. At that point, the system whill have been in play for quite a few years and then if the law is overturned, Congress wil probably take up ways to rescue the law. I predict that this will happen no matter which party has the majority, since there are aspects of the law which are or will be very popular when they are rolled out. Other parts probably not so much, but there won't be a wholesale overturning, more than likely due to the way the system works.

03-25-2010, 07:32 PM	#35
Nakor Addict Posts: 214 Karma: 511602 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: BC, Canada Device: Aluratek Libre	Okay, I misunderstood your point then. That said, I don't think a knock against the administration really serves well as a knock against the bill (some twist on an ad hominem perhaps? lol). And I have to say I kind of doubt they would break the constitution to achieve anything. (If they felt it was wrong they might try reform, but I doubt it. Especially in the current political climate.) Most of my post was not directed at you, for the record, but just a comment on what I do see a lot of from some of the less kindly of comments -- and unfortunately, from a lot of journalists and pundits whose goal seems less to report the news than it is to push their political agenda (whether it be for or against). I have to say that American politics have always seemed polarised to me. If you ask any given American what political "alignment" they have, the majority will probably answer either Democrat or Republican. If you were to ask the same question to random Canadians, I think you would find that the majority of us reject any political affiliation. It makes for a whole different political climate up here, because every time a new issue comes up the lines are redrawn and the "teams" change completely. There is a very, very little loyalty to political parties among non-politicians in Canada.

03-25-2010, 09:50 PM	#36
wodin Illiterate Posts: 10,279 Karma: 37848716 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: The Sandwich Isles Device: Samsung Galaxy S10+, Microsoft Surface Pro	I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I just don’t understand how throwing a trillion dollars down a rabbit hole is supposed to reduce the deficit by a couple hundred billion dollars. Could someone explain that to me please.

03-26-2010, 07:29 AM	#41
pietvo Reader Posts: 519 Karma: 24612 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Utrecht, NL Device: Kobo Aura 2, iPhone, iPad	Look at this chart: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healt...lthcare/933718

03-28-2010, 06:50 PM	#42
Spoon Man Groupie Posts: 188 Karma: 3002 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Device: Kindle 1	Do you have a chart that compares the income of doctor's by country as well?

03-29-2010, 01:06 AM	#43
Nakor Addict Posts: 214 Karma: 511602 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: BC, Canada Device: Aluratek Libre	Found one with a Google search. Be careful interpreting though, as various factors can affect how those costs should be read; percentage of specialists to GPs, cost of living, taxes and deductions, etc. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ountries-make/

03-29-2010, 03:35 AM	#44
The Straven Nevermore Posts: 63 Karma: 10000 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: the Flint Hills, KS Device: ex-iLiad, DR800SG	My two bits: I'm coming to the conclusion that insurance is an extremely poor method of allocating health care. Insurance companies are a third party standing between patients and doctors. Worst are the for-profit corporations: they have no interest in patients' well being. There's more, but long story short I'm opposed to insurance as the means by which health care is extended (and worse, mandatory insurance). On the other hand, I work for a large federal government agency, and I dread the idea of a big government-run program. Big government-run programs are wasteful. [blanket statement] The only way the federal government gets anything done is by throwing enough money at it. [/blanket statement] And again, you'd have a third party standing between patients and doctors. ...Hmm. The only form of government health care I might accept would be programs run by the states themselves. If a citizen didn't like a program he or she could always move. Competition of sorts. P.S. GA Russell, you've pretty well described my situation. Thanks, well put.

03-29-2010, 04:14 AM	#45
pietvo Reader Posts: 519 Karma: 24612 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Utrecht, NL Device: Kobo Aura 2, iPhone, iPad	I don't think insurance is a poor method. For health care it is the same as for other risks, like insuring your house. There are risks that would ruin you if you had to pay the cost yourself. E.g. your house burning down, or you needing an expensive operation. But for low expenses it it is actually more expensive to insure them as you also have to pay the cost and profit of the insurance company. There are two important aspects to make the insurance work well: there must be enough competition and it must be sufficiently regulated so that the companies cannot rip you off. (These aspects apply to most businesses I think.) The ripping off is especially important for people who have chronic diseases. I think health is so important an aspect of life that the decision about people's health should not be made by a commercial company. Therefore it is important that insurance companies shouldn't have the right to deny people solely because of their current health situation. Or otherwise their should be a fallback insurance, e.g. from the government for these. Of course the latter wouldn't be profitable and must be subsidized by the government from tax incomes or from a percentage of the income of the other insurance companies. I don't think government programs by themselves are necessarily wasteful. But there are also mixed forms, like a private company where the shares are owned by the government. Then there isn't that shareholder's pressure to be only profitable at the expense of all other values. It can still be run biy managers that try to make the best out of it, including doing things at lowest cost. But the government can then put other objectives, like having to accept all sorts of customers, something that normal shareholders wouldn't be willing to accept, as these have profit as the major objective. The insurance company where I have most of my insurances was originally founded as a pure `mutual', i.e. a group of people (in this case civil servants, teachers and similar) coming together putting money in a box, so to say, from where there risk expenses could be paid. No profit as objective, only covering the risks at the lowest possible cost. I don't know if it still works that way as they have merged with other companies. They are still one of the cheapest and have a good service. They don't sell through intermediaries which also saves money. I got mine when I started working at the university which had a contract with them.

Advert

Advert