OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[pk500]

Very well said Jared. I think we are all thinking about healthcare in terms of our own perspectives, which is probably better off than most people (since we can afford to buy consoles, games, gadgets, etc). We need a system that focuses more on preventative care.

Again, you're assuming that everyone who shuns preventative care does it because they're uninsured, which is fallacy.

I know people who have insurance who don't get regular teeth cleanings. I have full vision coverage and got my first optical exam in 10 years about four months ago, even though I wear glasses for being nearsighted.

How many of you guys with health insurance get annual physicals? JackB1, we're both over 40. Do you get an annual physical, colonoscopy and prostate screening?

I know I don't. Shame on me, but I doubt I'm alone. Most people wait until they feel like sh*t to go to the doctor's, insured or not.

Socialized medicine is not going to create a boom in preventative care in the U.S.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Lot of insurance companies won't offer products in certain markets.

The health insurance industry has consolidated a lot in recent years, with various buy outs and mergers.

There isn't as much price competition as there used to be. Premiums are just trending up and it's hard to imagine why they would suddenly go down.

I believe McCain is calling for catastrophic pools so that people who can't afford premiums would get coverage. But some states have tried to set up such coverage, with taxpayer money, and the results have been unsatisfactory. An expansion of this scheme in every state would cost an unspecified sum of money.

At least he's proposing more than just blaming lawyers.

[Jackdog]

Very well said Jared. I think we are all thinking about healthcare in terms of our own perspectives, which is probably better off than most people (since we can afford to buy consoles, games, gadgets, etc). We need a system that focuses more on preventative care.

Again, you're assuming that everyone who shuns preventative care does it because they're uninsured, which is fallacy.

I know people who have insurance who don't get regular teeth cleanings. I have full vision coverage and got my first optical exam in 10 years about four months ago, even though I wear glasses for being nearsighted.

How many of you guys with health insurance get annual physicals? JackB1, we're both over 40. Do you get an annual physical, colonoscopy and prostate checkup with your benefits?

I know I don't. Shame on me, but I doubt I'm alone. Most people wait until they feel like sh*t to go to the doctor's, insured or not.

Socialized medicine is not going to create a boom in preventative care in the U.S.

Take care,
PK

I agree man. If it wasn't for VA and their policies I wouldn't have taken an annual physical in years. Going to the doctors office sucks. I don't do it unless I have too.

[pk500]

For the record, I don't believe the existing private healthcare system in the U.S. is the paragon of efficiency. It has boondoggles, red tape and excessive expenses that can and should be corrected.

But trusting the government to be more efficient? I shudder.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

Lot of insurance companies won't offer products in certain markets.

The health insurance industry has consolidated a lot in recent years, with various buy outs and mergers.

There isn't as much price competition as there used to be. Premiums are just trending up and it's hard to imagine why they would suddenly go down.

I believe McCain is calling for catastrophic pools so that people who can't afford premiums would get coverage. But some states have tried to set up such coverage, with taxpayer money, and the results have been unsatisfactory. An expansion of this scheme in every state would cost an unspecified sum of money.

At least he's proposing more than just blaming lawyers.

True. At the moment I am paying 320 bucks a month for BCBS coverage with dental for my wife and son. I think that's a good deal for the services they recieve. I think premiums vary by state.

[Jackdog]

For the record, I don't believe the existing private healthcare system in the U.S. is the paragon of efficiency. It has boondoggles, red tape and excessive expenses that can and should be corrected.

But trusting the government to be more efficient? I shudder.

Take care,
PK

Agreed!

[Naples39]

Here's a quick way to reduce health costs. Tort Reform.

I'll second that.

[Jared]

And many times, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill. The thing is, if you have a system where the uninsured have access to preventative care, you help improve a lot of health problems. And there are clear benefits to people not being financially ruined if they get sick.

All of which is based on the idea that government can provide comprehensive, efficient care for all of its citizens, which socialized medicine programs have proved to be false.

No...socialized medicine programs actually work pretty well. For example:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/0 ... 829fa_fact

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance.

I can come up with a list of other statistics as well that show that in many ways, Europe is doing something better than us re: health care. None of my European friends complain about their health care system...instead, they all wonder why ours is so screwed up.

Our current system is inefficient, wastes tons of money on paperwork, spends too much money on lawsuits, etc. Developing a single-payer system would cut out a lot of inefficiencies, and we would end up paying less while insuring more people.

[pk500]

I can come up with a list of other statistics as well that show that in many ways, Europe is doing something better than us re: health care. None of my European friends complain about their health care system...instead, they all wonder why ours is so screwed up.

Of course they're not complaining, because they're not paying for it. But what is their income tax and sales tax rate compared to the U.S.?

Our current system is inefficient, wastes tons of money on paperwork, spends too much money on lawsuits, etc. Developing a single-payer system would cut out a lot of inefficiencies, and we would end up paying less while insuring more people.[/quote]

Yes, we'd insure more people. But would they get better care, especially without choice of medical providers?

I've said it once, I'll say it again: If the U.S. health care system is such sh*t, then why do people from all over the world come here for specialized treatment?

And I'm sure those who favor socialized medicine will counter with how American life expectancy is lower than other Western, industrialized nations. Well, what the hell does that have to do with socialized medicine?

Not much if you have a nation filled with people addicted to fast food and junk food, allergic to exercise and who consider a video game console or a TV to be a suitable babysitter for their kids.

No regular visit to any doctor is going to change that mentality, which leads to lower life expectancy more than the lack of socialized medicine.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

You know, if they did reform the system and got those 40-50 million uninsured into the system, we'd have to compete with them for access to the same amount of health care resources.

Maybe we don't need reform after all.

Of course, on our current track, more and more people are becoming uninsured, as many employers drop coverage due to increasing costs.

That should really be the bigger issue, the increasing out-of-pocket costs for those insured, than the number of uninsureds.

In the context of higher prices for everything else, higher premiums, deductibles and copayments are going to be noticed more and more.

[pk500]

Of course, on our current track, more and more people are becoming uninsured, as many employers drop coverage due to increasing costs.

That should really be the bigger issue, the increasing out-of-pocket costs for those insured, than the number of uninsureds.

In the context of higher prices for everything else, higher premiums, deductibles and copayments are going to be noticed more and more.

You're spot on, man!!!

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Finally, with the U.S. national debt at $9 trillion and counting, how do proponents of socialized medicine plan to pay for this national program without massive tax increases?

Especially considering that most of the people who support socialized medicine generally also have a much smaller aversion to pork-barrel spending than those who favor the private sector?

Riddle me that, please, within the confines of reality. A total pullout from Iraq isn't going to happen whether Obama or McCain occupy the White House, so you're not going to find your golden lining there.

Thanks,
PK

[JRod]

PK,

First off not all European countries have a government ran health care program. Some have a model where people have insurance offered to them by the private sector. The government might only be involved to regulate costs and set guidelines.

Second, not all European nations use taxes to pay for their health care. England does and that's the one that's held up by those against universal health care.

Third, there are different ways to offer health care that isn't like the medicare, VA model. And you can have a public private partnership where the government only set up regulations and criteria, but very little tax dollars are used.


America has the finest health care program if you can pay for it. Outside of that we are no different from a third world nation.

[wco81]

It doesn't require EU taxation especially VATs around 20% to fund health care. To repeat, we spend more per capita and as a percentage of GDP, than anyone else.

Hey we're going to spend trillions on the war but have taxes increased? Deficits have but not taxes.

And nobody questions the quality of the care providers. It's the way we pay and administer care which is screwed up.

In a lot of plans these days, you really don't have as much choice in providers as you'd think. Most plans steer you towards network or "preferred" providers -- doctors who've agreed to the negotiated reimbursement rates with the insurer.

Go to a doctor out of the network and you pay more out of pocket. Many doctors drop out of network as they see the payments from insurers cut.

If you want to go to a specialist, again, you go to an in-network primary provider who must refer you to a specialist from a specific list.

All those CT scanners and MRI machines, if you want access to them, you must get preauthorized, that is, your insurer must agree with your doctor that it's necessary. Of course we've heard horror stories about differences between insurers and doctors on what procedures are necessary.

You can overcome all these restrictions and obstacles if you have the money and are willing to cut through the red tape.

[Jared]

I've said it once, I'll say it again: If the U.S. health care system is such sh*t, then why do people from all over the world come here for specialized treatment?

Because we have really good specialists, partially due to our competitive research environment, and partially due to private practice. This is great, but 99.9% of the population isn't able to get their health care from the world's top specialists.

Now I want to be clear...I am not for complete socialized medicine, as we need to be #1 in medical research, and a combination of private competition and gov't grant funding (like we currently have) works well in attracting and developing the best doctors and researchers. However, when the system fails to cover millions, and (by doing so) costs us more money, it needs to change. A public/private system, where the government provides insurance to everyone while letting hospitals and researchers stay private, is a big improvement.

As for cost, it wouldn't be massive. For example, Obama's plan is estimated to cost $50-100 billion a year, which would be covered by repealing the Bush tax cuts.

[wco81]

Finally, with the U.S. national debt at $9 trillion and counting, how do proponents of socialized medicine plan to pay for this national program without massive tax increases?

We're already paying for this care. Maybe not directly but as part of our compensation when we're covered through employment.

Then we have people paying some ghastly premiums to purchase their own insurance.

Whoever pays for it, reform is meaningless if they can't bring down costs. For instance, the prescription drug program, they essentially chose to pay retail instead of negotiating wholesale or discounted premiums. No wonder, since pharmaceutical lobbyists helped draft the bill, including a provision prohibiting discounted drug prices.

[TheHiddenTrack]

I hate reading all these posts that are coming from one or the other extreme. The same repeating false dichotomies. You can reform the system we have without scraping it all. This is the same BS that people spout when they say it's either a choice between socialism or capitalism. It isn't.

Both sides of the argument have legitimate points but I think any empathetic person would agree that when people get sick or injured they should be able to get care that doesn't lead them to financial ruin or death. If that is the starting point, rather than your favorite ideology, then we can have a rational conversation.

The best solution would be a combination of the current system with a system that would help those who aren't covered right now. If you add the latter, that doesn't have to uproot the former. Almost everybody in this thread is cherry-picking their information in an effort to support their ideology. The system is broken on some levels and working better than any other country on other levels. There is no reason why we can't reform the system in a way that works for everyone.

[RobVarak]

It's easy to lose sight of the big picture when it comes to health care. First of all, there are a million different proposals with varying degrees of costs, choices etc. But on the macro level, those advocated by Obama, Clinton etc. are indeed socialized. Keep in mind what that means.

Socializing medicine will essentially mean redistributing health care wealth. If you have the means and the inclination under the current system, you can avail yourself of the incredibly good health care if you choose to do so. You will lose some degree of access, freedom and choice under socialized medicine. Philosophically however, this is only right and proper. Socialism ain't a garden party.

If you do not have the means or the inclination under the current system to get access to the best healthcare, you should probably receive better care under a socialized plan. I say probably because there are infinite ways for government to screw everybody LOL

Place your bets...

[RobVarak]

The best solution would be a combination of the current system with a system that would help those who aren't covered right now. If you add the latter, that doesn't have to uproot the former. Almost everybody in this thread is cherry-picking their information in an effort to support their ideology. The system is broken on some levels and working better than any other country on other levels. There is no reason why we can't reform the system in a way that works for everyone.

There is, as PK has shown, very few people who are totally without options in this country. The real impetus for the debate is not the uninsured, but rather the costs of insurance across the board. It's gotten to the point where it is affecting the growth of business and the efficiency of government at the state and Federal levels. No matter what your ideology, those are the real concerns.

[TheHiddenTrack]

It's easy to lose sight of the big picture when it comes to health care. First of all, there are a million different proposals with varying degrees of costs, choices etc. But on the macro level, those advocated by Obama, Clinton etc. are indeed socialized. Keep in mind what that means.

Socializing medicine will essentially mean redistributing health care wealth. If you have the means and the inclination under the current system, you can avail yourself of the incredibly good health care if you choose to do so. You will lose some degree of access, freedom and choice under socialized medicine. Philosophically however, this is only right and proper. Socialism ain't a garden party.

If you do not have the means or the inclination under the current system to get access to the best healthcare, you should probably receive better care under a socialized plan. I say probably because there are infinite
ways for government to screw everybody LOL

You may be right. Please explain a few things to me:

What about Obama's health care plan is "socialist" ?

How is his idea of lowering the cost of insurance going to lead to "redistributing health care wealth." Are there some specific parts of his plan that you are referring to? I can see your argument with Clinton a little more clearly.

And if I'm reading you correctly you are again repeating a false dichotomy. You did write: "First of all, there are a million different proposals with varying degrees of costs, choices etc." However, the rest of your post is simply repeating the same socialism vs capitalism argument.

You don't think that within "million different proposals with varying degrees of costs, choices etc" there is a middle ground that can appeal to everyone?

Like you have said there is a safety net to some degree in this country, why not improve it and expand it so it catches everyone? Or even reform certain parts of regular system so that less people need to be caught. And if you think this is isn't worth doing or simply isn't feasible how do you justify that to yourself morally? I'm not attacking you, I'm just asking what your mental strategy is so maybe I can adopt it. It would make my life much easier.

[Feanor]

Wrong. There are plenty of fat poor people in New Zealand and in many of other countries. Pull your head out of your ass, wipe the s*** off your face, and open your eyes to the rest of the world.

Whoa! That's way over the line IMO.

The guy tells me f*** off, but what I said was over the line? Please.

[EDIT] I see having read more of the thread that this issue was discussed and this post wasn't really needed.

[Jackdog]

Wrong. There are plenty of fat poor people in New Zealand and in many of other countries. Pull your head out of your ass, wipe the s*** off your face, and open your eyes to the rest of the world.

Whoa! That's way over the line IMO.

The guy tells me f*** off, but what I said was over the line? Please.

That s*** is over. We have moved on. Now piss off.

[Feanor]

Never been there.Didn't see too many fat poor New Zealanders in East Detroit. Spent most of my time in Africa and the Middle East. You know the countries where people are killing themselves to come to the United States. They must have their heads up their asses too.

That's not going to fly, sorry. You said America was the only country with fat poor people. This is complete nonsense, like a lot of what you post.

The fact that many people in third world countries want to move to America proves nothing.

[Jackdog]

Never been there.Didn't see too many fat poor New Zealanders in East Detroit. Spent most of my time in Africa and the Middle East. You know the countries where people are killing themselves to come to the United States. They must have their heads up their asses too.

That's not going to fly, sorry. You said America was the only country with fat poor people. This is complete nonsense, like a lot of what you post.

The fact that many people in third world countries want to move to America proves nothing.

You know what man. And I really mean this from the bottom of my nutsack. Nevermind.

[Feanor]

Hurts to be caugh in a lie, huh.

Nice edit.