Obama Healthcare Speech

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252705259]Here is an arguement against the government running our healthcare.



<blockquote>Already we've estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money <strong>that is simply being wasted in federal health-care programs.</strong> This includes over $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors.

</blockquote>


The above quote from Obama is readily available.



This administration has been saying the same thing since before Obama took office. Why has nobody done anything about this wasteful spending yet?</blockquote>


Obama already stated that he does not want to do it piecemeal. . . The subsidies he is talking about was part of the brilliant Medicare plan that Bush pushed through. In essence, private insurance companies were billing more to provide the same services that medicare had been previously providing.



<a href="http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html">http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html</a>



Speaking of donuts:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms</a>



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)</a>



Is there anything that Bush did that he didn't screw up?
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252666976]Nude.



Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?

I am all for companies making a profit. Mine included. But the Insurance companies have behaved very poorly.

They deserve to be punished. I would wager they will be extinct in the next 5 years. They played the game and lost.

Before Nixon enabled Kaiser and the companies that followed. We survived just fine without them.</blockquote>
You are conflating health insurance with health care. Nixon didn't set up the current system of employer-linked health care, Truman did. Prior to WW2, sick people were treated at home by doctors with little black bags and hospitals were few and far between. The explosion in health care services was driven by the free market. You are angry, vindictive, and looking to take it out on someone, as evidenced by your comment that "they deserve to be punished". The insurance companies can be regulated without destroying the health care system they helped finance just you can assuage your need for "justice". I'd suggest you do some research on the history of health care in this country, specifically the timeline of HMO's in the past 70 years.

<blockquote>Dont use donuts as an example. Lets use a commodity we all need to have to survive. Try your analogy with Water.

How would you feel if a few companies controlled the water supply and charged some insane amount for it ?

You could get it cheaper in Canada or Mexico. But they lie and tell you that water is not as clean.



You need to pay extra for our special water. Research, Development, the right to choose your own faucet.</blockquote>
You might be able to argue a "right" to water, but you cannot argue a right to have it pumped, piped, treated, and delivered to your house. That's why you pay the Metropolitan Water District to import water from the Colorado, Owens, and other rivers to your house and business. You buy your water from someone else, <b>because</b> you don't have a right to it.

<blockquote>Healthcare is a simple necessary commodity to life. Same as water, electricity, food, and fuel.

Nobody should be able to control that right from the people and manipulate it for billions in profit.



This is the 21st century after all. What makes us human is our compassion for our fellow man.

And withholding basic healthcare is like letting a man die of thirst.</blockquote>
There is so much cognitive dissonance in your statement I don't know where to start. First, you don't need health care to survive. If you did, the human race would have died out a long time ago. Health care is a relatively modern invention, prior to that people used leeches and concoctions of roots, leaves, and berries as "health care". Electricity is not necessary to life either, since it wasn't in widespread use until the 1900's. Another example of private companies investing in the infrastructure to deliver what is now so ubiquitous that you want to deem it necessary. What is next, cable TV? Universal Gasoline and Heating Oil?



No. I've laid out way to address the inadequacies in the insurance system because there is no good reason for it to be part of your employer's compensation package, or regulated only at the state level. But the Democrats are trying to change the basic way we get health care by disguising it as insurance reform in a naked attempt to wrest control of health care away from the individual and giving it to government.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252707528][quote author="trrenter" date=1252705259]Here is an arguement against the government running our healthcare.



<blockquote>Already we've estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money <strong>that is simply being wasted in federal health-care programs.</strong> This includes over $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors.

</blockquote>


The above quote from Obama is readily available.



This administration has been saying the same thing since before Obama took office. Why has nobody done anything about this wasteful spending yet?</blockquote>


Obama already stated that he does not want to do it piecemeal. . . The subsidies he is talking about was part of the brilliant Medicare plan that Bush pushed through. In essence, private insurance companies were billing more to provide the same services that medicare had been previously providing.



<a href="http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html">http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html</a>



Speaking of donuts:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms</a>



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)</a>



Is there anything that Bush did that he didn't screw up?</blockquote>


Lets assume that the President title does not exist. Lets Call the President the CEO of America. The people are not citizens they are share holders.



The old CEO retired and a majority of the share holders were happy to see him leave. The new CEO and many of the shareholders think everything the old CEO did he screwed up.



So the new CEO says in his interview process he sees lots of money being wasted on donutcare, billions in fact. We the share holders say you are hired. The new CEO continues to talk about the billions being wasted on donut care but does nothing because it is tied to a bigger initiative he has in mind that may take years to complete.



It is not the new CEO's fault that the old CEO screwed it up so all is ok. We will continue to waste money on Donut care until the New CEO's pet project goes through.



Are we saying that if the new CEO's pet project does not go through we will continue to waste Billions on donut care?



I would like the new CEO to stop the wasteful spending he has identified TODAY.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252708687][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252707528][quote author="trrenter" date=1252705259]Here is an arguement against the government running our healthcare.



<blockquote>Already we've estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money <strong>that is simply being wasted in federal health-care programs.</strong> This includes over $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors.

</blockquote>


The above quote from Obama is readily available.



This administration has been saying the same thing since before Obama took office. Why has nobody done anything about this wasteful spending yet?</blockquote>


Obama already stated that he does not want to do it piecemeal. . . The subsidies he is talking about was part of the brilliant Medicare plan that Bush pushed through. In essence, private insurance companies were billing more to provide the same services that medicare had been previously providing.



<a href="http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html">http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/ny/2009/12/articles/medicare_advantage_needs_change_.html</a>



Speaking of donuts:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms</a>



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donut_hole_(Medicare)</a>



Is there anything that Bush did that he didn't screw up?</blockquote>


Lets assume that the President title does not exist. Lets Call the President the CEO of America. The people are not citizens they are share holders.



The old CEO retired and a majority of the share holders were happy to see him leave. The new CEO and many of the shareholders think everything the old CEO did he screwed up.



So the new CEO says in his interview process he sees lots of money being wasted on donutcare, billions in fact. We the share holders say you are hired. The new CEO continues to talk about the billions being wasted on donut care but does nothing because it is tied to a bigger initiative he has in mind that may take years to complete.



It is not the new CEO's fault that the old CEO screwed it up so all is ok. We will continue to waste money on Donut care until the New CEO's pet project goes through.



Are we saying that if the new CEO's pet project does not go through we will continue to waste Billions on donut care?



I would like the new CEO to stop the wasteful spending he has identified TODAY.</blockquote>


Unfortunately, the president is not a CEO. CEOs are more like dictators as they can do pretty much anything without board approval. Presidents on the other hand have no legislative powers, just powers of persuasion when it comes to making laws. Since the donut and subsidy were the result of legislation, they can only be stopped by another legislative act.
 
Well, I may not be as verbose as some of the opinions here, but I just think the insurance companies have behaved in a deplorable way. There have been well documented cases of this and I don't think I need to quote statistics. I think if there is a government sponsored option, it will force competition and the insurance companies will have no choice but to step their game up. Don't want the government option? Fine by me and I'm sure people would all agree.



Seems to me FedEx and UPS are doing fine even with the US Postal Service. And that's really how I would hope things go down. For your average, non-specialized health care, most people will stick with the government (analogous to USPS). Need something specialized or just don't feel that's the way to go? You go the private route (aka FedEx and UPS) who can provide different, and sometimes better, options.
 
From: "Health Care Mythology"

by Cliff Asness, Ph.D



Myth #7 Health Care is A Right

Nope, it?s not. But we are at the nuclear bomb of the discussion. The one guaranteed to get me yelled at or perhaps picketed by a mob waving signs printed up with George Soros?s money. Those advocating socialized medicine love to scream ?health care is a right.? They are loud, they are scary, but they are wrong about rights (as the 1980 kid in me resists the temptation to type ?TO PARTY? ? you had to be there). This is more philosophy than economics, and I'm not a philosopher. But, luckily it doesn't take a

superb philosopher to understand that health care simply is not a ?right? in the sense we normally use that word. Listing rights generally involves enumerating things you may do without interference (the right to free speech) or may not be done to you without your permission (illegal search and seizure, loud boy-band music in public spaces). They are protections, not gifts of material goods. Material goods and services must be taken from others, or provided by their labor, so if you believe you have an absolute right to them, and others don?t choose to provide it to you, you then have a ?right? to steal from them. But what about their far more fundamental right not to be robbed?



In fact, although it?s not the primitive issue, the constant improvement in health care gives another good example of why the ?right? to health care makes little sense. Did you have a right to chemotherapy in 1600 AD? You could have protested to Parliament all you wanted, but chemo just didn?t exist. Then, did you have a right to it the moment some genius invented it? You did not pay for the research. You did not make the breakthrough. Where do you get the right? How did it come into existence for you the moment somebody else created these things? I?m pretty sure you cannot have rights to material goods that don?t exist, and I am pretty certain that the moment some genius (or business, or even government) brings them into the world your ?rights? do not improve. But strangely, many disagree.



Conundrums are easy to create. If a cure for all disease is discovered but it costs the GDP of Europe for each treatment, do we all have a right to it? Of course not. We can say we do, but it does not matter. We cannot have it (unless you agree with my forecast for Europe?s GDP and wait 50 years). But the absolute ?health care is a right? position leads to a clear yes (you know those people bussed in by ACORN and the SEIU carrying signs saying ?health care is a right?? Ask them what they think about this issue; I dare you). The smarter crazies might argue that they only mean the right to a reasonable level of health care. But then we have government running and rationing health care, as Congressional committee decides what?s ?reasonable?? Health care is not a primitive right, but keep printing those signs.



So why do people scream health care is a ?right? if it so obviously is not? If not a right it can still be willingly provided as charity by society. But those screaming ?health care is a right? worry that this will not work out as well for them. In fact it would work out if all they cared about was good health care for all, and not power, but they do love that power.







Those seeking free health care could admit these are not rights but they simply want other

people?s stuff, and be honest supplicants, or open thieves. However, they believe that guilt and the false moral high ground work better for them. Do not cede that ground. They are beggars with the government?s guns behind them. They are beggars you may, or may not, choose to help. I personally have chosen to help many (those with my views are painted as non- humanitarians but we believe our ideas will make everyone better off and many of us are willing to help). But that is your and my choice, not their right. When they ask you to help, please consider it, and do what your conscience and abilities suggest and allow. When they try to take it as their right, they are thieves, tell them ?no.?

Finally, while again we may choose to provide a minimum standard of health care to our

neediest, we should not be ashamed that better health care, like all material goods, comes with success. Capitalism is simply what happens when you mix freedom and economics. Capitalism says if you achieve and build more, you can spend more and have more. You can have a bigger TV, a bigger house, a hotter spouse, and shinier teeth for your pets (or a hotter pet and shinier teeth for your spouse). How on Earth did the notion that it?s ?unfair? to spend the money you earned on your own health care, probably the most important thing to you, come about? Well, I know how it came about. It has been pushed by a far left academia, political candidates who don?t have a clue about economics beyond cashing a lobbyist?s check, trade union organizers pining for a workers revolution that just never came but now they?re trying to steal on the sly

(but God forbid a secret ballot), and a biased media who just thinks they are smarter, better and kinder people than everyone else because they enjoy making snotty sarcastic comments about Republicans (and where is Jon Stewart going to get his health care under the new system anyway?).



But I digress again. Ironically of course, as in all things, the profits made on allowing people to spend differentiated amounts of their own money on health care would fund so much better health care for all it?s sickening (pun intended). Think of the newly invented drugs and other advances that shortly would be cheap enough for everyone if companies were actually fully free to profit on them. It would be too long of an economics lesson to explain to my beret-wearing friends of Che that profits are a good thing, and that companies cannot charge whatever they want forever, as the essence of capitalism is not love of the corporation but love of competition. But, while I admit it looks dark now, everyone would do well to study up on those things as signs are beginning to

emerge that they are going to be making a comeback soon. Finally, to reiterate, calling something a ?right? and holding up signs screaming you have that right just does not make it so. I once picketed NASA for a whole summer with a sign that said "Faster Than Light Travel Is A Right" and "FTL NOW!!" (it was actually a whole back and forth chant that went ?when do we want FTL!!?, with the sing-song response,?now!!?, etc., but it was just me and didn?t work too well). Alas, those twisted fascist bastards ignored me and we still have not visited the Crab Nebula.
 
<blockquote>Unfortunately, the president is not a CEO. CEOs are more like dictators as they can do pretty much anything without board approval. Presidents on the other hand have no legislative powers, just powers of persuasion when it comes to making laws. Since the donut and subsidy were the result of legislation, they can only be stopped by another legislative act.

</blockquote>


Obama could get on national TV in front of Congress and make a speech that implores Congress to pass a bill that he would sign that cut out that wasteful spending he has identified.



He continues to say we will take care of the wasteful spending when his healthcare reform gets passed. It leads me to believe one of two things, he can't cut the spending he is saying he can or he doesn't care that the taxpayers money is being wasted every day since he has been in office.



He seems to be content to say we can pay for it by fixing this but he doesn't want to try to fix it in case he is wrong.
 
So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us ?



<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html</a>
 
[quote author="diulei" date=1252709875]Well, I may not be as verbose as some of the opinions here, but I just think the insurance companies have behaved in a deplorable way. There have been well documented cases of this and I don't think I need to quote statistics. I think if there is a government sponsored option, it will force competition and the insurance companies will have no choice but to step their game up. Don't want the government option? Fine by me and I'm sure people would all agree.



Seems to me FedEx and UPS are doing with even with the US Postal Service. And that's really how I would hope things go down. For your average, non-specialized health care, most people will stick with the government (analogous to USPS). Need something specialized or just don't feel that's the way to go? You go the private route (aka FedEx and UPS) who can provide different, and sometimes better, options.</blockquote>


I'm going to use your analogy, because it ties in with no_vas's view of Medicare as the standard of government run health care.



The U.S. Postal service has a monopoly on letters. It is illegal for any other entity to handle letters... a federal crime. UPS and FedEx handle "packages", not letters. Even so, they are recent competitors to the USPS, only being in existence since 1919 and 1971 respectively. They compete by delivering "documents and packages" more quickly, but at a much higher cost, than the United States Postal Service. The reason for this is pretty simple, the USPS can count on it's monopoly as a steady source of income, so it can afford to keep it's prices lower than that of a fully private company and at whatever schedule they wish. If UPS or FedEx had a monopoly on junk mail delivery, I imagine that they could reduce prices for package delivery too, since any delivery costs would already be covered by the junk mail delivery costs. Without that monopoly, the private delivery service would have long ago pushed the USPS out of business.



They may eventually do so, unless the USPS manages to offset the speed advantage. Let's assume they find a way, but at slightly higher cost to the sender. Instead of raising prices, what if the Federal government informed the major fuel suppliers that they were only going to pay a set amount for the fuel, an amount that was 10% lower than cost, and passed laws that the fuel supplier must sell to them at those prices. What if they did the same with wages for their worker, 10% below prevailing wages across the spectrum of managers, carriers, sorters, janitors, etc.? How would those fuel suppliers make up the shortfall? By raising the prices they charge non-USPS entities perhaps? What about the workers? They can't get raises, so they either quit or take on outside work maybe?



This is what Medicare has done. They set caps on what they will pay for medications, procedures, hospital stays, and even doctor visits. The program enjoys the advances of the privately funded medical system without shouldering the burden of those funding costs. They can set limits on what they require patients to pay and those patients have no other choice. Any shortfalls in the budget are covered with tax dollars and they have an effective legal monopoly on patients over 65. Even so, they are highly dependent on the existing private system paying for the R&D that allows them to treat patients with the most effective care. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's parasitic from top to bottom. However, it does have the advantage of having the true costs obfuscated by multiple layers of government taxation, mandated price fixing, and lower out-of-pocket costs.



I use the post office when I don't care how long it takes a package to get there, or if I need a legally binding proof of delivery. For anything else, it's UPS or FedEx because they do it better, faster, and cheaper than the government alternative.
 
As much as I love donuts... and donuts for everyone would be great... I don't trust the gov with making my donuts efficiently. A donut I pay 50 cents for will probably cost the taxpayers $1 and will not be the same quality or as fresh.



Shouldn't stuff like this be run at the local/state level anyways? Whenever I question the government's ability to provide adequate healthcare, people always bring up fire/police/schools... but those aren't run at the Federal level. And even at local/state government, there is still a bunch of waste.



I dunno... if healthcare is important... do you really trust the government to provide quality service that doesn't cost the taxpayer more than it should?
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252719289]As much as I love donuts... and donuts for everyone would be great... I don't trust the gov with making my donuts efficiently. A donut I pay 50 cents for will probably cost the taxpayers $1 and will not be the same quality or as fresh.



Shouldn't stuff like this be run at the local/state level anyways? Whenever I question the government's ability to provide adequate healthcare, people always bring up fire/police/schools... but those aren't run at the Federal level. And even at local/state government, there is still a bunch of waste.



I dunno... if healthcare is important... do you really trust the government to provide quality service that doesn't cost the taxpayer more than it should?</blockquote>


They bring up Fire/Police/Schools because they want to argue that government is good, ignoring your point that those services are all local, not federally funded, and only exist because of a common need for the services provided. As I think awgee said somewhere, I am not going to catch someone else's broken leg, or their cancer, and they are not at risk of coming down with Mitral regugitation because we live next to each other. My wife's medication alone costs $50k a year, should no_vas have to help pay for that on top of his own taxes? Of course not. If/when we lose the insurance we have now, we are going to have to make some hard choices about our lifestyle, but we aren't going to go run to the government demanding a handout. I'd rather reduce our rather comfortable living standard rather than place our burden on someone else's back and I don't think that it's unreasonable that others have to make the same decisions.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252717079][quote author="diulei" date=1252709875]Well, I may not be as verbose as some of the opinions here, but I just think the insurance companies have behaved in a deplorable way. There have been well documented cases of this and I don't think I need to quote statistics. I think if there is a government sponsored option, it will force competition and the insurance companies will have no choice but to step their game up. Don't want the government option? Fine by me and I'm sure people would all agree.



Seems to me FedEx and UPS are doing with even with the US Postal Service. And that's really how I would hope things go down. For your average, non-specialized health care, most people will stick with the government (analogous to USPS). Need something specialized or just don't feel that's the way to go? You go the private route (aka FedEx and UPS) who can provide different, and sometimes better, options.</blockquote>


I'm going to use your analogy, because it ties in with no_vas's view of Medicare as the standard of government run health care.



The U.S. Postal service has a monopoly on letters. It is illegal for any other entity to handle letters... a federal crime. UPS and FedEx handle "packages", not letters. Even so, they are recent competitors to the USPS, only being in existence since 1919 and 1971 respectively. They compete by delivering "documents and packages" more quickly, but at a much higher cost, than the United States Postal Service. The reason for this is pretty simple, the USPS can count on it's monopoly as a steady source of income, so it can afford to keep it's prices lower than that of a fully private company and at whatever schedule they wish. If UPS or FedEx had a monopoly on junk mail delivery, I imagine that they could reduce prices for package delivery too, since any delivery costs would already be covered by the junk mail delivery costs. Without that monopoly, the private delivery service would have long ago pushed the USPS out of business.



They may eventually do so, unless the USPS manages to offset the speed advantage. Let's assume they find a way, but at slightly higher cost to the sender. Instead of raising prices, what if the Federal government informed the major fuel suppliers that they were only going to pay a set amount for the fuel, an amount that was 10% lower than cost, and passed laws that the fuel supplier must sell to them at those prices. What if they did the same with wages for their worker, 10% below prevailing wages across the spectrum of managers, carriers, sorters, janitors, etc.? How would those fuel suppliers make up the shortfall? By raising the prices they charge non-USPS entities perhaps? What about the workers? They can't get raises, so they either quit or take on outside work maybe?



This is what Medicare has done. They set caps on what they will pay for medications, procedures, hospital stays, and even doctor visits. The program enjoys the advances of the privately funded medical system without shouldering the burden of those funding costs. They can set limits on what they require patients to pay and those patients have no other choice. Any shortfalls in the budget are covered with tax dollars and they have an effective legal monopoly on patients over 65. Even so, they are highly dependent on the existing private system paying for the R&D that allows them to treat patients with the most effective care. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's parasitic from top to bottom. However, it does have the advantage of having the true costs obfuscated by multiple layers of government taxation, mandated price fixing, and lower out-of-pocket costs.



I use the post office when I don't care how long it takes a package to get there, or if I need a legally binding proof of delivery. For anything else, it's UPS or FedEx because they do it better, faster, and cheaper than the government alternative.</blockquote>


Nude..your post totally lost me...you make about four or five points that do not seem relate to each other but I will try and address them in entirety.



1) USPS loses money because they are required to deliver mail to every address in the nation at very very low cost, even compared to the rates of those countries far smaller than the US. This article is very old but you can the idea: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world</a>



It can only raise postage at a rate equal to the rate of inflation. Another way to look at it is: The USPS will lose about $7 billion in 2009...but it delivers over 180 billion pieces of mail. That means that that the USPS would make a profit if it raised postal rates by just 4 cents per piece of mail!



2) UPS and FedEx are able to focus on the money making portions of the delivery industry: Packages. They do not have to expend huge resource to maintain post offices or pick up mail at every apartment/house/residence (whether the mail is there or not). UPS and FedEx can elect not to deliver to an address because it is too remote or too costly, the USPS cannot. UPS and FedEx can (and do) add surchages for fuel costs and out of zone deliveries...this can only be done for packages (no letters). The USPS also treat their workers properly (unlike UPS and FedEx who claim that their drivers are not employees but rather independent contractors.)



3) I don't quite get your argument regarding Medicare leeching off of private industry. An uninsured person in the US pays more in prescription costs than another individual in Canada, Japan, or the UK. Why should that be? Would Merck and Phizer stop making drugs because they can no longer shaft the American consumer?



<a href="http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf">http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf</a>



4) I also argue that it is private insurance companies who leech off of the government, not the other way around. Insurance companies make money only if their premium exceed their costs. Thus, it is in their best interest to kick off the sickest and oldest. Who has to cover those? The government (via Medicare and state programs) and the ERs (uninsured), who are subsidized by the Federal government.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252719922][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252719289]As much as I love donuts... and donuts for everyone would be great... I don't trust the gov with making my donuts efficiently. A donut I pay 50 cents for will probably cost the taxpayers $1 and will not be the same quality or as fresh.



Shouldn't stuff like this be run at the local/state level anyways? Whenever I question the government's ability to provide adequate healthcare, people always bring up fire/police/schools... but those aren't run at the Federal level. And even at local/state government, there is still a bunch of waste.



I dunno... if healthcare is important... do you really trust the government to provide quality service that doesn't cost the taxpayer more than it should?</blockquote>


They bring up Fire/Police/Schools because they want to argue that government is good, ignoring your point that those services are all local, not federally funded, and only exist because of a common need for the services provided. As I think awgee said somewhere, I am not going to catch someone else's broken leg, or their cancer, and they are not at risk of coming down with Mitral regugitation because we live next to each other. My wife's medication alone costs $50k a year, should no_vas have to help pay for that on top of his own taxes? Of course not. If/when we lose the insurance we have now, we are going to have to make some hard choices about our lifestyle, but we aren't going to go run to the government demanding a handout. I'd rather reduce our rather comfortable living standard rather than place our burden on someone else's back and I don't think that it's unreasonable that others have to make the same decisions.</blockquote>


Health care is not a communal need? Really? I would love to see how you would contain the swine flu or prevent a measles outbreak on your own. On the contrary, I would say that health care needs to be provided on a federal level because diseases/illness know no boundaries. Wildfires are massive but would certainly not engulf multiple states. Crime is largely local but we still have the FBI. Should single individuals and couples without kids not have to pay taxes that go toward public schools?



Both you and awgee are also ignoring the associated costs of not having medical care. If someone breaks a leg but cannot get treated, he or she may lose his/her job. A mother unable to get prenatal/pregnancy care because of a lack of insurance is much more likely to give birth to babies with physical or mental issues (which results in higher medical, social, and educational costs later) A person who cannot get proper treatment for their ailment will have to go to work with the ailment and result in lower productivity. There are a million other related costs/issues.



Economically speaking, universal healthcare is infinitely better than the system we have now. Employers no longer have to bear the costs of an increase in premiums which they have no control over. This would allow them to 1) cut their overhead, 2) increases wages, and/or 3) obtain more profit. American companies no longer have to work at a disadvantage against companies in other countries where there are universal health care.



Also, universal healthcare allows people to go see doctors for preventative or basic care and allow ERs and trauma unit to deal with real emergencies. People would longer wait until a condition grew so bad that they have to get emergency care.



Universal healthcare also allows people to start small businesses that would otherwise stay at a job to keep health coverage.
 
@IrvineCommuter:



While all those may be good reasons to have universal healthcare... my issue is the actual cost-conscious and adequate execution of such a plan.



The woes of Social Security is proving that the federal government is not up to the task. Again I ask you, do you think our government can do it?



Everyone makes comparisons to other countries, but let's face it... it's tough to compare the size, variation etc of the population of the US to other nations. We have states bigger than many of those countries. Which again, speaks to why this needs to be managed at a local/state level, if at all.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252720864]Nude..your post totally lost me...you make about four or five points that do not seem relate to each other but I will try and address them in entirety.



1) USPS loses money because they are required to deliver mail to every address in the nation at very very low cost, even compared to the rates of those countries far smaller than the US. This article is very old but you can the idea: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world</a>



It can only raise postage at a rate equal to the rate of inflation. Another way to look at it is: The USPS will lose about $7 billion in 2009...but it delivers over 180 billion pieces of mail. That means that that the USPS would make a profit if it raised postal rates by just 4 cents per piece of mail!</blockquote>


According to their <a href="http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/welcome.htm">financial releases</a>, they were making money up until the crisis hit, when overall mailings were down. Their deficit for the last two years was ~$8 Billion. They are losing money because advertising mailing is down. If it were due to onerous delivery requirements, as you assert, they would never make money. You article's information is no longer relevant, considering the changes in the last 16 years.





<blockquote>2) UPS and FedEx are able to focus on the money making portions of the delivery industry: Packages. They do not have to expend huge resource to maintain post offices or pick up mail at every apartment/house/residence (whether the mail is there or not). UPS and FedEx can elect not to deliver to an address because it is too remote or too costly, the USPS cannot. UPS and FedEx can (and do) add surchages for fuel costs and out of zone deliveries...this can only be done for packages (no letters). The USPS also treat their workers properly (unlike UPS and FedEx who claim that their drivers are not employees but rather independent contractors.) </blockquote>


You are kidding right? USPS and FedEx both have huge operations that need to be maintained, from airports to sorting facilities to maintenance yards. The have to cover an area almost as extensive as the USPS and you can't do that without the kind of offices and buildings you claim they don't have. The logistics require it. Furthermore, the USPS ends at the border, while UPS and FedEx have to maintain facilities worldwide. And still have competitive rates. While they may hire independent contractors to drive, the people in the sorting facilities and offices are regular employees, with all the associated costs.



<blockquote>3) I don't quite get your argument regarding Medicare leeching off of private industry. An uninsured person in the US pays more in prescription costs than another individual in Canada, Japan, or the UK. Why should that be? Would Merck and Phizer stop making drugs because they can no longer shaft the American consumer?



<a href="http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf">http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf</a></blockquote>


Probably not. But how much are people actually paying for these drugs? If Walmart can offer hundreds of 30-day prescriptions for $4.00, why can;t other companies like Rite-Aid, CVS, or Walgreen's? And it appears Walmart was able to do it without government intervention. But that doesn't change anything about Medicare refusing to pay even the break even price for goods and services, as that is how they are keeping their costs down.



<blockquote>4) I also argue that it is private insurance companies who leech off of the government, not the other way around. Insurance companies make money only if their premium exceed their costs. Thus, it is in their best interest to kick off the sickest and oldest. Who has to cover those? The government (via Medicare and state programs) and the ERs (uninsured), who are subsidized by the Federal government.</blockquote>


You have it backwards: Medicare (1965, Johnson) was in place long before HMO's became the primary source (1973, Nixon) of health care. Private companies have shouldered all the costs of research & development into extending life and improving the quality of that extended life. They did so with private investment because there was a profit motive, not because there was government funding. Insurance companies are profit driven, true, but your complaints can be addressed with regulation without imperiling the system that's provided the advances. Your also wrong about the ER's, in large part they have to eat the costs of those who don't/can't pay and eventually have to close, precisely because they ARE NOT reimbursed for those costs by the federal government.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252726746][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252720864]Nude..your post totally lost me...you make about four or five points that do not seem relate to each other but I will try and address them in entirety.



1) USPS loses money because they are required to deliver mail to every address in the nation at very very low cost, even compared to the rates of those countries far smaller than the US. This article is very old but you can the idea: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/729/is-it-true-u-s-postage-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-developed-world</a>



It can only raise postage at a rate equal to the rate of inflation. Another way to look at it is: The USPS will lose about $7 billion in 2009...but it delivers over 180 billion pieces of mail. That means that that the USPS would make a profit if it raised postal rates by just 4 cents per piece of mail!</blockquote>


According to their <a href="http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/welcome.htm">financial releases</a>, they were making money up until the crisis hit, when overall mailings were down. Their deficit for the last two years was ~$8 Billion. They are losing money because advertising mailing is down. If it were due to onerous delivery requirements, as you assert, they would never make money. You article's information is no longer relevant, considering the changes in the last 16 years.





<blockquote>2) UPS and FedEx are able to focus on the money making portions of the delivery industry: Packages. They do not have to expend huge resource to maintain post offices or pick up mail at every apartment/house/residence (whether the mail is there or not). UPS and FedEx can elect not to deliver to an address because it is too remote or too costly, the USPS cannot. UPS and FedEx can (and do) add surchages for fuel costs and out of zone deliveries...this can only be done for packages (no letters). The USPS also treat their workers properly (unlike UPS and FedEx who claim that their drivers are not employees but rather independent contractors.) </blockquote>


You are kidding right? USPS and FedEx both have huge operations that need to be maintained, from airports to sorting facilities to maintenance yards. The have to cover an area almost as extensive as the USPS and you can't do that without the kind of offices and buildings you claim they don't have. The logistics require it. Furthermore, the USPS ends at the border, while UPS and FedEx have to maintain facilities worldwide. And still have competitive rates. While they may hire independent contractors to drive, the people in the sorting facilities and offices are regular employees, with all the associated costs.



<blockquote>3) I don't quite get your argument regarding Medicare leeching off of private industry. An uninsured person in the US pays more in prescription costs than another individual in Canada, Japan, or the UK. Why should that be? Would Merck and Phizer stop making drugs because they can no longer shaft the American consumer?



<a href="http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf">http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040628104816-38372.pdf</a></blockquote>


Probably not. But how much are people actually paying for these drugs? If Walmart can offer hundreds of 30-day prescriptions for $4.00, why can;t other companies like Rite-Aid, CVS, or Walgreen's? And it appears Walmart was able to do it without government intervention. But that doesn't change anything about Medicare refusing to pay even the break even price for goods and services, as that is how they are keeping their costs down.



<blockquote>4) I also argue that it is private insurance companies who leech off of the government, not the other way around. Insurance companies make money only if their premium exceed their costs. Thus, it is in their best interest to kick off the sickest and oldest. Who has to cover those? The government (via Medicare and state programs) and the ERs (uninsured), who are subsidized by the Federal government.</blockquote>


You have it backwards: Medicare (1965, Johnson) was in place long before HMO's became the primary source (1973, Nixon) of health care. Private companies have shouldered all the costs of research & development into extending life and improving the quality of that extended life. They did so with private investment because there was a profit motive, not because there was government funding. Insurance companies are profit driven, true, but your complaints can be addressed with regulation without imperiling the system that's provided the advances. Your also wrong about the ER's, in large part they have to eat the costs of those who don't/can't pay and eventually have to close, precisely because they ARE NOT reimbursed for those costs by the federal government.</blockquote>


However, it is not just the federal government creating the emergency room crisis. The HMO's are contributing to iit also. Both Blue Cross and Blue Shield HMO's require authorization for someone to go to urgent care. That means that they are sick, they call their doctor, their doctor can't see them for 2 weeks to 1 month, so they ask if they can "pretty please" go the urgent care to wait in the office for a couple of hours to be seen. The doctor's office says, "Let me think about it, we'll call you back", then they never call back. What does the person do? They head to the emergency room where they pay a $100 copay and the insurance company pays 1/20 of the bill charged by the hospital and the hospital is stuck with the rest. It doesn't matter if there's a public option, either way there must be some heavy duty regulation should be placed on the private companies. BTW, this is not a made up story, it was relayed to me this morning by a co-worker, it reiterated my decision to pay the extra for the PPO.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252721659]

Health care is not a communal need? Really? I would love to see how you would contain the swine flu or prevent a measles outbreak on your own. On the contrary, I would say that health care needs to be provided on a federal level because diseases/illness know no boundaries. Wildfires are massive but would certainly not engulf multiple states. Crime is largely local but we still have the FBI. Should single individuals and couples without kids not have to pay taxes that go toward public schools?



Both you and awgee are also ignoring the associated costs of not having medical care. If someone breaks a leg but cannot get treated, he or she may lose his/her job. A mother unable to get prenatal/pregnancy care because of a lack of insurance is much more likely to give birth to babies with physical or mental issues (which results in higher medical, social, and educational costs later) A person who cannot get proper treatment for their ailment will have to go to work with the ailment and result in lower productivity. There are a million other related costs/issues.



Economically speaking, universal healthcare is infinitely better than the system we have now. Employers no longer have to bear the costs of an increase in premiums which they have no control over. This would allow them to 1) cut their overhead, 2) increases wages, and/or 3) obtain more profit. American companies no longer have to work at a disadvantage against companies in other countries where there are universal health care.



Also, universal healthcare allows people to go see doctors for preventative or basic care and allow ERs and trauma unit to deal with real emergencies. People would longer wait until a condition grew so bad that they have to get emergency care.



Universal healthcare also allows people to start small businesses that would otherwise stay at a job to keep health coverage.</blockquote>


So without Universal Healthcare, we are all going to die from a flu outbreak? Why hasn't that happened already? Humans have survived plagues, influenza, and social diseases for all of our existence without Universal Health Care. Why si it imperative to our survival now? What has changed?



We may be ignoring the associated costs of not having health care, but you are ignoring the added costs of treating those people who currently aren't being covered. Rather than stay home and suffer through a cold or bout of stomach flu, they are going to show up for treatment. Is it a sprain or a broken foot? Better go to the Doctor to find out. Heart problems or gas? Time for a free trip to the ER. Tuberculosis or just a cough? Every problem becomes a reason to go to the doctor because they can, every hypochondriacs wet dream.



Employers no longer have to pay? Are you joking? It's called taxes and it's the only way you can take over 1/6 of the economy and pay for it. Everyone's taxes are going up with Universal Health Care, and business will continue to shift those costs to the consumer <b>just as they do now</b>.



Right, no more preventable conditions growing worse for lack of care... except that everyone will do this (see above) whenever they even think there might possibly be something wrong. what happens to productivity when all those people call in sick?
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1252727558]However, it is not just the federal government creating the emergency room crisis. The HMO's are contributing to iit also. Both Blue Cross and Blue Shield HMO's require authorization for someone to go to urgent care. That means that they are sick, they call their doctor, their doctor can't see them for 2 weeks to 1 month, so they ask if they can "pretty please" go the urgent care to wait in the office for a couple of hours to be seen. The doctor's office says, "Let me think about it, we'll call you back", then they never call back. What does the person do? They head to the emergency room where they pay a $100 copay and the insurance company pays 1/20 of the bill charged by the hospital and the hospital is stuck with the rest. It doesn't matter if there's a public option, either way there must be some heavy duty regulation should be placed on the private companies. BTW, this is not a made up story, it was relayed to me this morning by a co-worker, it reiterated my decision to pay the extra for the PPO.</blockquote>


Did they bother calling another doctor in their plan? Did they call the nurse line or the provider's help line? This is the problem with anecdotal evidence, there is no opportunity for fact checking.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252726338]@IrvineCommuter:



While all those may be good reasons to have universal healthcare... my issue is the actual cost-conscious and adequate execution of such a plan.



The woes of Social Security is proving that the federal government is not up to the task. Again I ask you, do you think our government can do it?



Everyone makes comparisons to other countries, but let's face it... it's tough to compare the size, variation etc of the population of the US to other nations. We have states bigger than many of those countries. Which again, speaks to why this needs to be managed at a local/state level, if at all.</blockquote>


Japan has about 127 million (about 40 percent of the US population) and it has universal health care. Canada is larger in size that the US and it has universal health care. While the comparison are not directly on par, health care in this country is doable (considering about 1/4 of the country is already under government plans).



Social Security is a good system when it was created in 1933. It was never designed to be the only source of income for elderly but rather work in concert with employer-based pension plans and private savings. Unfortunately, employers have elected to cut pensions out completely, leaving the government with the bill. SS was working until fairly recently when people began living older and older. In 1933 , the life expectancy of a white male was about 63 years whereas in 2004, the life expectancy is 75.7. That means an extra twelve years worth of benefits that were not anticipated 75 years ago. The idea is still good but needs to be tweaked (i.e. raising the retirement age).



The problem with managing it at a local/state level is that you will have a mesh mashed system of healthcare in people in different states would receive different levels of care and cause problems when those people move around. For example, if Arizona adopts a very low-level of insurance where preventative/basic care are not covered. Some Arizonan then move to California (who has a great insurance plan) when they are sick and old, forcing California and its tax payers to take on the burden that Arizona did not want to take up.
 
If Medicare/Medicaid represent the current state of nationalized healthcare, and assuming that exapanding national health insurance won't drive private insurers out of business (which it will), how can the simple fact that Medicare and Medicaid are the largest drivers of the National deficit justify expanding the program to cover every person?



Btw, don't take my word for it.... "Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin." Barack Obama on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009.



I'm not a policy maker, but seems to me that the answers ought to be found in the incentives (e.g. tax credits, etc..) versus socialization of an industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top