Please explain the healthcare resistance

[ruffryder]

1) Real Americans pay their own way..

So I take it you don't have insurance? If you do and you have used it for anything major, I would be you are net positive on the deal.

3) Government control of healthcare is a dismal failure in large populations. Government by nature (any one) is incapable of being efficient or effective. With government in control the patient always suffers... always.

no it is not, not by a long shot. Lots of countries that have government health care do quite well and the people really like it too. Though, like any system built by people, they are far from perfect. There are many better then ours though..

4) The systems are all broke or soon will be. Massachusetts (6.5 m people) has a form of government healthcare; it's horrible and they're beyond broke. In Norway (4.8 m people) patients reportedly wait months for service Americans now receive in hours or days. America's healthcare costs are about 6% of GDP whereas Norway's is about 45% of GDP.

There is a lot of BS in this one.. dang dude, you need to do some research. US is 15% and Norway is 10%... check it out
Wiki has a nice graph as well...

5) American healthcare is second to none in the world.

how does spending twice as much for care = second to none? How are you quantifying this? Life expectancy isn't the best, nor are some of the others? How do you define as second to none?

6) Everyone in America gets treated, regardless of ability to pay.

correct, and the people with insurance pay for those that don't have it and stiff the hospitals. See your first point as this is a contradiction.

7) Healthcare insurance actually covers your stuff & bank accounts, not your health. If you do not have insurance or ability to pay, then you may lose your stuff; cost of living. Yeah, life's a b!tch, grow up.

no, 75% of all heath care related bankruptcys occur with people that had insurance to begin with.

check out this article..
quote from article

the researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to nearly two thirds, or 62 percent, of all bankruptcies in 2007

quote from article

Just over three-quarters of people who suffered a bankruptcy due to illness were insured at the onset of their health issue. But the total out-of-pocket medical costs for those who had insurance when they became ill was a steep $17,749, on average. For those who didn’t have insurance, the average debt was $26,971.

so it seems insurance is not the end all that you make it out to be

8) Private insurance is not that expensive. Of those without coverage, most have fancy cell phones, cable tv, plasma tvs... They choose other things over healthcare insurance.

true, but the problem is not that insurance is expensive, it is that the health care is expensive which causes the insurance to be expensive. Insurance isn't the issue, it is that if health care costs keep increasing then the government will not be able to afford to cover those with Medicare/Medicaid.

9) Being able to choose is part of being American. It's a God given right (not government given).

Do you work with a company that offers health insurance? What choices do you have?

Just trying to clarify some facts.

 

[ruffryder]

ha ha pinner... you beat me to it, but I have quotes!! ha ha... good stuff!

 

[diamonddave]

Ruffy,

You ever seen that harley bumper sticker that says,"If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand"?

These people who think Health care reform is the all evil socialism need to wake up. I used to be on the right wing of this issue. That was until I had to deal with real issues in our "Second to nobody else" healthcare system that have drasticly affected myself and family.

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

And another thing Stem....many of us are of the opinion that health care should not be the governments top priority right now....it should be about job creation, get the economic engine of the U.S. moving again....

NEVER SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR THE GOV
HAVE YOU EVER READ THE CONSTITUTION?

Repubs, on the other hand, are no less guilty. They should have focused some of their energy on creationg job legislation than trying to block the Dem's every move.

REPUBLICANS COULDN'T STOP ANYTHING. THIS STATEMENT IS A TOTAL LIE.
100% of the immediate mess is democRAT

 

[ruffryder]

100% of the immediate mess is democRAT

Nah, but it is great for you to keep thinking that too..

I bet you think Obama bailed the banks out too...

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

How are those that want to take from some to give to others with healthcare insurance any different that those that want to take away forest land for wilderness?

ruff... too bad you don't have a fact between your ears or the ability for cognitive thought... keep getting your stuff from the Oprah show

 

[ruffryder]

ruff... too bad you don't have a fact between your ears or the ability for cognitive thought... keep getting your stuff from the Oprah show

Ah yes, the personal attack as the sign of an inferior stance in an argument. Why thank you!

So do you think Obama was responsible for the bank bailout? Kind of curious what you think about that point.

 

[diamonddave]

:

I bet you think Obama bailed the banks out too...

No he just continues the same bad policies of the idiot that he replaced. Now he's resorting to sarcasm.

 

[DVarmit]

The rest is payed for via our tax system....
Isn't it a system like this Obama is working for?
Thanks

Pretty simple for me... It's socialism period and I am not a fan of socialism in any way shape or form.

I do not like ideology that you take income from one class and redistribute that income to another class.

Our current system is somewhat flawed by our own laws. We have non-compete laws were a company providing care can not cross borders (states) and compete with other providers. This creates somewhat of a monopoly and allows providers to determine costs not the market.

I am not against re-vamping health care. I think we should start with removing the restrictions on competition etc. and see what happens then go from there.

The current form of legislation is nothing more than buying class votes through entitlements. Our government is in record book debt. With that said what makes anyone with a right mind think that they are capable of running a program that takes up roughly 17% of our GDP?

The arrogance of our legislators is truly unbelievable. At one point in our history accepting a hundred million dollars for a vote as in Louisiana was considered a crime.

Louisiana Purchase

Today, this type of behavior is considered negotiating.. Something is seriously wrong and needs correcting which I hope will take place in November of this year.

The individuals pushing this reform regardless of party affiliation looked at it as a way to purchase votes and they were taken by surprise when a majority of Americans revolted against the reform. This was clearly seen by Scott Brown (Republican) being elected in Massachusetts. He took the seat of Ted Kennedy who was a true Democrat (Liberal/Socialist). I don't think anybody thought it was possible but here we sit with a Republican filling a Democratic seat in the Senate.

In the end I believe that the American people, regardless of what party affiliation they have, see that this bill and the process that brought this bill forward as extremely flawed and will and do reject it in it's entirety.

In the end I think America is one of the most giving countries in the world. When disasters occur we are there and I very very rarely hear someone say we shouldn't be in someplace like Haiti providing money and assistance. The BIG difference is we CHOOSE to offer our money and resource and, we as a people, are not FORCED by government to offer our resources.

I think we need to change the flag back to "Don't Tread On Me"

My 2 cents

 

[ruffryder]

Pretty simple for me... It's socialism period and I am not a fan of socialism in any way shape or form.

Insurance IS a method of socializing costs. That is how it works. Those that need the care get the care and do not pay for it already. I don't get why so many people are against socializing things when the government does it, but when a company does it, it is no big deal...

I do not like ideology that you take income from one class and redistribute that income to another class.

What tax bracket are you in? If you aren't in the very high ones, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, and pay back the rich people?

Our current system is somewhat flawed by our own laws. We have non-compete laws were a company providing care can not cross borders (states) and compete with other providers. This creates somewhat of a monopoly and allows providers to determine costs not the market.

error, wrong statement... Yah, that would make insurance companies more competitive with other insurance companies, but that does nothing and would actual reduce the ability for insurance companies to negotiate for lower rates with hospitals. Insurance providers only determine cost of premiums. Hospitals determine cost of care. Doctors determine how much care to give / need. We determine how much care we want. There are problems and issues with ALL the players in the system.

 

[DVarmit]

Insurance IS a method of socializing costs. That is how it works. Those that need the care get the care and do not pay for it already. I don't get why so many people are against socializing things when the government does it, but when a company does it, it is no big deal...


What tax bracket are you in? If you aren't in the very high ones, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, and pay back the rich people?


error, wrong statement... Yah, that would make insurance companies more competitive with other insurance companies, but that does nothing and would actual reduce the ability for insurance companies to negotiate for lower rates with hospitals. Insurance providers only determine cost of premiums. Hospitals determine cost of care. Doctors determine how much care to give / need. We determine how much care we want. There are problems and issues with ALL the players in the system.

Here is an explanation of how the process works.

http://gecon.blogspot.com/2009/10/competition-in-health-insurance.html

I was involved in Health Care for many years. The rates set are based on participation and is not set by the hospitals. While the hospitals do have a standard rate they, in most cases, are willing to take reduced payments. This is because the insurance provider has a large number of participants in the group covered. It's all a win some loose some game while always trying to cover costs. In the old days, it was straight cost reimbursement. If your cost say per visit was $100.00 and your cost reporting at the end of the year proved that you were reimbursed $100.00.. Today, it is all DRG/outcomes based. Which means, if you are a diabetic and have certain complications you get reimbursed a set amount. It is an interesting game that's for sure but to pin this mess on whether or not someone is considered by someone rich or poor or to imply that hospitals are raping the system is not accurate. The cost of health care should be paid for equally by everyone receiving care and it should be equitable based on what you refer to as "rich or poor". A 20% tax on $25,000 is just as equitable as a %20 tax on $10,000

One final thought, you don't own a business do you? If I, as an insurance provider, can lower my cost per member therefor attracting new members because they can more easily afford my plans then I grow and make money (Capitalism). If I have no need or competition then my cost per member will be as high as I can get away with. It is the competition that drives down costs not government.

 

[ruffryder]

The rates set are based on participation and is not set by the hospitals. While the hospitals do have a standard rate they, in most cases, are willing to take reduced payments.

agreed there is flexibility. They might take reduced payments if an insurance provider has a lot of people in the area that use the hospital, but if the insurance provider has a small amount of users at that specific hospital, the ability to reduce the payments for care is also reduced. You are right though, hospitals and insurance providers NEGOTIATE for the costs of care that is paid.

It is an interesting game that's for sure but to pin this mess on whether or not someone is considered by someone rich or poor or to imply that hospitals are raping the system is not accurate.

agreed there are many problems. We the people, the insurance companies, the hospitals, the doctors, the regulations setup by the government are all problems.

The cost of health care should be paid for equally by everyone receiving care and it should be equitable based on what you refer to as "rich or poor". A 20% tax on $25,000 is just as equitable as a %20 tax on $10,000

Actually that isn't paid equally. Paid equally would be a set amount paid per person. In your example, the rich still are paying more then poor people. I would doubt that the rich use that much more services to justify the increase in costs, especially since we are assuming the same coverage?

If I, as an insurance provider, can lower my cost per member therefor attracting new members because they can more easily afford my plans then I grow and make money (Capitalism). If I have no need or competition then my cost per member will be as high as I can get away with. It is the competition that drives down costs not government.

Capitalisms function is not necessarily to minimize costs but to maximize profits. You could increase profits by minimizing costs, but that isn't the only way. Also, there is no feedback for healthy people or better care in the system. Doctors make more money with sick people then they do healthy people.

Government can reduce costs, by removing middlemen and by changing the markets to increase competition. There is a lot of time wasted between doctors and insurance companies.

 

[skidoorulz]

I will make it simple stem. The working man is sick and tired of paying for everything that the non working man thinks he deserves. If you don't have health insurance get off your lazy butt and get a job. If you have a job and don't have health insurance, get off your lazy butt and get a job that does. If you can't get a job that has health insurance then get off your lazy butt and get a second job and provide your own health insurance. Then you might want to give up the smokes and the poker machines and the lottery tickets and get health insurance.

 

[JSCC]

I will make it simple stem. The working man is sick and tired of paying for everything that the non working man thinks he deserves. If you don't have health insurance get off your lazy butt and get a job. If you have a job and don't have health insurance, get off your lazy butt and get a job that does. If you can't get a job that has health insurance then get off your lazy butt and get a second job and provide your own health insurance. Then you might want to give up the smokes and the poker machines and the lottery tickets and get health insurance.

AFUDGINMEN!!!

What a wild concept.........work hard and get it yourself.......who would have thunk it?

You get my vote for post of the year my friend!

 

[defysgravity]

Then you might want to give up the smokes and the poker machines and the lottery tickets and get health insurance.

No kidding...Can't afford insurance but....damn....I gotta have a pack of smokes a tall boy and a scratch it lotto ticket everyday after work....

 

[plumnuts]

Ruffy,

You ever seen that harley bumper sticker that says,"If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand"?

These people who think Health care reform is the all evil socialism need to wake up. I used to be on the right wing of this issue. That was until I had to deal with real issues in our "Second to nobody else" healthcare system that have drasticly affected myself and family.

and where is a better healthcare system? (not talking reimbursement system.. but healthcare)

 

[plumnuts]

it used to be you could buy your own health insurance and deduct it from your income tax.. but thanks to the A hole unions and the democrats we lost the deduction and moved to an employer based plan... I have GREAT health insurance but I would rather have the money and then CHOOSE what coverage I want and need for my situation.. and you know be responsible for it... living here in Eastern WA we get to buy our insurance in Idaho (cheapest in the USA) mainly because the Boise politicians don't set up a mess for mandatory minimums.. like in Washngton State.. which jacks the crap out of the price.. other states have manadatory minimums and the Obama plan does too.. thus the high cost for the plan.. and unless you plan on paying a lot more in taxes.. we can't pay for..