Obama Healthcare Speech

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Nude" date=1252727696][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?</blockquote>


I am not sure I can continue this debate with you any longer if your conclusion is basically "people die or get hurt, oh well..the human species will survive." I would hope that most people have a more sanguine view of life and people and a lesser drastic view of social Darwinism.



People with insurance now don't go rushing into hospital or the doctors just because they have insurance. Why...because most people have better things to do with their time than go to the doctors. It took my wife to bug me for like six months just to get my physical. While abuse of any system exists, that does not mean that no services should be provided.
 
[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252728351]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.</blockquote>


You are forgetting that medicare and medicaid take the poorest, oldest, and sickest people while allowing private insurance companies to get premiums from those who are relatively healthy and young. Look at medicare advantage, it allowed private insurance companies to sign up the healthiest and youngest people in medicare while leaving the government with the rest (not to mention charging the government 14 percent more to care for them.)
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252729794]

I am not sure I can continue this debate with you any longer if your conclusion is basically "people die or get hurt, oh well..the human species will survive." I would hope that most people have a more sanguine view of life and people and a lesser drastic view of social Darwinism.



People with insurance now don't go rushing into hospital or the doctors just because they have insurance. Why...because most people have better things to do with their time than go to the doctors. It took my wife to bug me for like six months just to get my physical. <strong> While abuse of any system exists, that does not mean that no services should be provided.</strong></blockquote>


Conversely, just because a system has flaws, that in itself doesn't warrant it's destruction and replacement. Your conclusion is "U.H.C. is the only answer" and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that any other way has any validity.



As for my view... I will require heart surgery at some point in my life, that is a certainty. My condition has nothing to do with diet, exercise, or other behavioral cause. I'm just lucky. My wife has Relapse-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. She's just lucky, too. We did nothing to aquire these conditions nor can we get rid of them. So yes, in my view, part of life is accepting that people get sick, get hurt, and die. That I am one of those people doesn't entitle me to take money from everyone else to pay for my health care. By your rationale, being hungry entitles one to take money from everyone else to buy food, regardless of whether they can afford to feed themselves or not.
 
So should these costs be saddled by employers like myself. For the benifit of whom? Doctors ? Patients ?



Nude.

I would suggest writing those health care premium checks for 6 years like I have and see how you feel.

Every year 15-20% increases. All the while coverage decreases.



All the while companies like United Health Care just pay the Legislators off and its business as usual.



I say we put the bastards out of business with the Public Option. Screw them. Heads on a stick.



<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html">http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html</a>





"The Minnetonka, Minn.-based parent of UnitedHealthcare of Ohio Inc. reported Tuesday a second quarter profit of $859 million, or 73 cents a share, which is more than double the $337 million, or 27 cents a share, earned during the same quarter a year ago. Last year?s earnings included a pre-tax charge that amounted to 47 cents a share to settle two class-action lawsuits related to a stock-options backdating scandal"
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252730529][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252729794]

I am not sure I can continue this debate with you any longer if your conclusion is basically "people die or get hurt, oh well..the human species will survive." I would hope that most people have a more sanguine view of life and people and a lesser drastic view of social Darwinism.



People with insurance now don't go rushing into hospital or the doctors just because they have insurance. Why...because most people have better things to do with their time than go to the doctors. It took my wife to bug me for like six months just to get my physical. <strong> While abuse of any system exists, that does not mean that no services should be provided.</strong></blockquote>


Conversely, just because a system has flaws, that in itself doesn't warrant it's destruction and replacement. Your conclusion is "U.H.C. is the only answer" and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that any other way has any validity.



As for my view... I will require heart surgery at some point in my life, that is a certainty. My condition has nothing to do with diet, exercise, or other behavioral cause. I'm just lucky. My wife has Relapse-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. She's just lucky, too. We did nothing to aquire these conditions nor can we get rid of them. So yes, in my view, part of life is accepting that people get sick, get hurt, and die. That I am one of those people doesn't entitle me to take money from everyone else to pay for my health care. By your rationale, being hungry entitles one to take money from everyone else to buy food, regardless of whether they can afford to feed themselves or not.</blockquote>


I don't think that I said UHC is the only way...to me it's the best way. That does not mean that I think the civilization is going to collapse because it is not implemented. In fact, I would not mind a public option.



Personally, both my wife and I are very healthy and have good insurance policy through our employers. Thus, we would have little to gain if UHC was implemented. Aside from all the economic and social consideration, there is a moral imperative for me that the "richest country" in the world provide a basic level of health care to our citizens. Just as I believe that rich people should pay more taxes (percentage wise) than people less wealthy. We all owe a lot to this country and should live up to our social contract to make it as strong as possible. Telling people to pull themselves by their bootstraps is fine and good but we should at least give them boots and straps.



I am glad to see that you and your wife are able keep up with medical expenses but what if you are not? What if either you and/or your wife lose insurance and have to pick between getting medication for her or buying food? Why should anyone in this country have to make that choice? Why should a provider of health insurance make profit? There is some sort of perverse incentive there.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252731417]So should these costs be saddled by employers like myself. For the benifit of whom? Doctors ? Patients ?



Nude.

I would suggest writing those health care premium checks for 6 years like I have and see how you feel.

Every year 15-20% increases. All the while coverage decreases.



All the while companies like United Health Care just pay the Legislators off and its business as usual.



I say we put the bastards out of business with the Public Option. Screw them. Heads on a stick.



<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html">http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html</a>





"The Minnetonka, Minn.-based parent of UnitedHealthcare of Ohio Inc. reported Tuesday a second quarter profit of $859 million, or 73 cents a share, which is more than double the $337 million, or 27 cents a share, earned during the same quarter a year ago. Last year?s earnings included a pre-tax charge that amounted to 47 cents a share to settle two class-action lawsuits related to a stock-options backdating scandal"</blockquote>


bltserv,



You are going to pay those costs whether you write the check to your provider or you write the check to the IRS. There is no cost savings in any health care bill before congress. There are "fines" for small businesses who don't offer health plans. The ONLY way to pay for this is with higher taxes, so while you may feel good about screwing over those greedy insurance companies that pay out billions in health care costs every year, in the end you are still going to pay for your employee's health care.



You just won't get the benefit of any choices in the matter. And I hope your customers (or employees for that matter) never feel the same way about you that you feel about insurance companies.



PS: U.H.C. was Universal Health Coverage, not United Health Care, sorry for the confusion.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252731485]Personally, both my wife and I are very healthy and have good insurance policy through our employers. Thus, we would have little to gain if UHC was implemented. Aside from all the economic and social consideration, there is a moral imperative for me that the "richest country" in the world provide a basic level of health care to our citizens. Just as I believe that rich people should pay more taxes (percentage wise) than people less wealthy. We all owe a lot to this country and should live up to our social contract to make it as strong as possible. Telling people to pull themselves by their bootstraps is fine and good but we should at least give them boots and straps.



I am glad to see that you and your wife are able keep up with medical expenses but what if you are not? What if either you and/or your wife lose insurance and have to pick between getting medication for her or buying food? Why should anyone in this country have to make that choice? Why should a provider of health insurance make profit? There is some sort of perverse incentive there.</blockquote>


We all owe a lot to this country, principally to adhere to the ideals that were instrumental in it's founding, and not to transform it into a something else. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence reads thus:



<blockquote>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, <em><strong>provide </strong>for the common defence</em>, <em><strong>promote</strong> the general Welfare</em>, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</blockquote>


We provide for the common defense, but we only promote the general welfare. Furthermore, in the decade between the Declaration of Independence and the final ratification of the Constitution, if they had intended health care to be a right or even a national endeavor they certainly failed to address it... at all.



If it comes down to it, we will do what it takes to pay for the meds, because we choose to do so. However, I would rather die than forcefully place my burden on anyone else's back in order to live even one more day.
 
<blockquote>We provide for the common defense, but we only promote the general welfare. Furthermore, in the decade between the Declaration of Independence and the final ratification of the Constitution, if they had intended health care to be a right or even a national endeavor they certainly failed to address it? at all. </blockquote>




Healthcare in the late 1700`s ? In the Constitution or the Bill of Rights ?

These are living documents. To be amended as "We the People" see fit in later history.

Medicine didnt exist other than blood letting in this period.



So I guess Women should not vote and Slavery should be legal too by that logic.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252735199]<blockquote>We provide for the common defense, but we only promote the general welfare. Furthermore, in the decade between the Declaration of Independence and the final ratification of the Constitution, if they had intended health care to be a right or even a national endeavor they certainly failed to address it? at all. </blockquote>




Healthcare in the late 1700`s ? In the Constitution or the Bill of Rights ?

These are living documents. To be amended as "We the People" see fit in later history.

Medicine didnt exist other than blood letting in this period.



So I guess Women should not vote and Slavery should be legal too by that logic.</blockquote>
Fine then, let's do it your way, let's attempt to amend the Constitution. At least then we'd be doing things the way the Constitution allows, rather than this piecemeal socialization of the country.



I'm done here. I've laid out my arguments as genially, politely, and simply as I can. No one is really on the fence on this subject, and I doubt I am going to change the minds of anyone who really counts in this debate.
 
I've appreciated this discourse... especially the donuts analogy.



I think Universal Donut Service would be a better use of my tax dollars... and probably much easier to implement than something as monstrous as healthcare. I think we need to get some doctors/healthcare professionals and health insurance people in this thread to illustrate how difficult this task will be.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1252710551]

From: "Health Care Mythology"

by Cliff Asness, Ph.D

Myth #7 Health Care is A Right

</blockquote>


Hey! I've already had to read through these myths on that nutter's blog.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252704483][quote author="Look4house" date=1252676021][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252674466][quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. </blockquote>


Yeah, bullshit buddy. If I could buy into Medicare I'd do so in a heartbeat. It kicks the snot out of what private insurance pays for right before you become eligilble if you have to pay for it yourself.



ASSuming you can get somebody to cover you at all.</blockquote>


How does Medicare have better coverage than private insurances? You have specifics to share? I would love to hear and broaden my knowledge. Otherwise, I hate to say, your argument is BS. If you don't know much about Medicare, there is a 20% copay for all outpatient visits with no out-of-pocket maximum. Most major private insurances, if not all has a maximum yearly out-of-pocket maximum.</blockquote>


My wife lost her job in December, and I had to retain COBRA for six months because my wife's asthma (she found another job in a couple of months, but the insurance didn't kick in for 90 days past the start date). The first three were on my nickel before the Obama bailout subsidy kicked in. All told I wrote $4000 in checks there, plus prescription co pays at another $600 a month. That didn't include my insurance (which I could bind) that cost another $1200 over the same period. Now that we are on her companies insurance, it still costs $300 a month ($3600 a year) plus we have a $3000 cap in out of pocket expenses/co pays. We hit that last week because this insurance isn't as generous as the last plan. Lucky for me since I'm self employed, and we haven't been to the hospital yet. And I know damn well the $300 a month we are paying is a pittance compared to what the company is paying. All told I will spend <strong>$13,600 </strong>this year alone and <em>I haven't seen the doctor yet</em>.



My dad has had cancer twice in the past three years. His supplemental Medicare insurance is $200 a month. Combining his Medicare and supplemental insurance his out of pocket is less than a hundred bucks a month. When he got cancer the first time, his out of pocket was $20,000 over two months before Medicare kicked in.



I don't know if this is the specifics you were looking for, and I don't mean to speak for anyone else. All I know is what has happened in my immediate family, and in my experience, Medicare has been a far superior provider.



If you don't want socialized health care, great. Send yours over here. I'll take it. I?ll trade you that for what I lack in portability and denial of coverage with the employer based system.</blockquote>


While everyone agrees that private insurance are expensive and it is a financial burden for the average Americans, you argument is about the cost of premiums, not about Medicare has superior covergae than private insurance. Of course Medicare is cheaper, it is a benefit from our government. But if you disclose your health conditions prior to applying to private insurance, once your application is accepted, your coverage should be equivalent to any other insurances including Medicare.
 
[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>


No one anywhere can answer that question, including the President. The President likes to circle around the question for 5 minutes and try to fool the average Americans thinking what a great answer he gave. For those intelligent individuals like you, you know it doesn't fit.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252721659]

On the contrary, I would say that health care needs to be provided on a federal level because diseases/illness know no boundaries. </blockquote>


Noone on earth has use this argument to push for government healthcare. And I don't understand what's the relationship between disease without boundaries and government healthcare.





[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252721659] 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. </blockquote>


Someone who is working and don't get insurance is taking their own risk. If they get sick, they should pay for the cost of care. Low income mother/family can apply for Medicaid, if they don't qualify, then they should buy insurance before they are pregnant. There are consequences for not getting insurance if you can afford to do so.



[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252721659]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. </blockquote>


You are really joking. How much does it cost for the next 10 years for the current healthcare proposal? And you have some inside information how we are going to pay for it? How much does it cost for employer(s) to insure their employee(s)? You seem to know a lot more than Obama.



[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252721659]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>


This is getting absurd. You are saying the current healthcare system don't allow people to go see doctors for preventative care? What's the reason government run care allows ERs to deal with emergencies only? In fact, you don't even know how many doctors agree to sign on as government health plan providers. All of a sudden, our healthcare system has an influx of 30+ million members, if they can't get to see a doctor for a month, where do you think they will be going?
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252729924]

You are forgetting that medicare and medicaid take the poorest, oldest, and sickest people while allowing private insurance companies to get premiums from those who are relatively healthy and young. Look at medicare advantage, it allowed private insurance companies to sign up the healthiest and youngest people in medicare while leaving the government with the rest (not to mention charging the government 14 percent more to care for them.)</blockquote>


That is so wrong. Medicare don't discriminate nor forced to take the sicker population. The policy is written in stone who is eligible for Medicare, whether you are healthy or have 10 medical problems waiting to explode, billionaires over 65 is automatically enrolled in Medicare. Private insurance would be glad to continue coverage when you turn 65 as long as you pay your premium. Medicaid is for the poor, that is how it is designed. Private insurance don't force Medicaid to take the poor. In fact, I know you have never heard of Blue Cross Meidcaid program.



Medicare Advantage requires members to pay higher premiums. But I am not aware of they cherry pick their members. If you have concrete evidence, you should talk to a lawyer.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1252752858][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252729924]

You are forgetting that medicare and medicaid take the poorest, oldest, and sickest people while allowing private insurance companies to get premiums from those who are relatively healthy and young. Look at medicare advantage, it allowed private insurance companies to sign up the healthiest and youngest people in medicare while leaving the government with the rest (not to mention charging the government 14 percent more to care for them.)</blockquote>


That is so wrong. Medicare don't discriminate nor forced to take the sicker population. The policy is written in stone who is eligible for Medicare, whether you are healthy or have 10 medical problems waiting to explode, billionaires over 65 is automatically enrolled in Medicare. Private insurance would be glad to continue coverage when you turn 65 as long as you pay your premium. Medicaid is for the poor, that is how it is designed. Private insurance don't force Medicaid to take the poor. In fact, I know you have never heard of Blue Cross Meidcaid program.



Medicare Advantage requires members to pay higher premiums. But I am not aware of they cherry pick their members. If you have concrete evidence, you should talk to a lawyer.</blockquote>


By the pure nature of having a population of 65+ and poor people, medicare/aid is getting a disproportionally risky population. In insurance, you make money by balancing a risk with a low-risk element. If you were to extend the population of a federal health insurance program to the population as a whole, you'd be instantly getting a pool of low-risk subscribers. On a per-person cost basis, the expense would naturally drop since the risk is being diluted.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1252801582][quote author="Look4house" date=1252752858][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252729924]

You are forgetting that medicare and medicaid take the poorest, oldest, and sickest people while allowing private insurance companies to get premiums from those who are relatively healthy and young. Look at medicare advantage, it allowed private insurance companies to sign up the healthiest and youngest people in medicare while leaving the government with the rest (not to mention charging the government 14 percent more to care for them.)</blockquote>


That is so wrong. Medicare don't discriminate nor forced to take the sicker population. The policy is written in stone who is eligible for Medicare, whether you are healthy or have 10 medical problems waiting to explode, billionaires over 65 is automatically enrolled in Medicare. Private insurance would be glad to continue coverage when you turn 65 as long as you pay your premium. Medicaid is for the poor, that is how it is designed. Private insurance don't force Medicaid to take the poor. In fact, I know you have never heard of Blue Cross Meidcaid program.



Medicare Advantage requires members to pay higher premiums. But I am not aware of they cherry pick their members. If you have concrete evidence, you should talk to a lawyer.</blockquote>


By the pure nature of having a population of 65+ and poor people, medicare/aid is getting a disproportionally risky population. In insurance, you make money by balancing a risk with a low-risk element. If you were to extend the population of a federal health insurance program to the population as a whole, you'd be instantly getting a pool of low-risk subscribers. On a per-person cost basis, the expense would naturally drop since the risk is being diluted.</blockquote>


This make perfect sense in the corporate world. But keep in mind that Medicare is a government benefit for a selected group of people whether they are high risk, low risk or no risk. Medicare is not out to make a profit. Medicaid, on the other hand is open to anyone who is an adult with income requirement.
 
I'm not sure the assumption that "poor" people are higher health risks than people who are not poor is true. For 90% of my life growing up I didn't have insurance. My mother's income level could have, in some circles, qualified us as "poor." I almost never went to the doctor and neither did she. Not saying that this is common or not, just saying broad assumptions are useless. If there are data supporting these assumptions, that's one thing. there very well may be. Beside, when I did go to the doctor (broken bone, etc..) the emergency rooms were packed with "poor" people who had the flu or spained ankles or whatever -- they seemed to be receiving care somehow.



What I think is more important in the debate about universal healthcare is how basic principles of a free market economy create unintended consequences. Money motivates. I would assume, though of course I don't know and have no data to back this up -- just something I hear from doctor friends -- is that fewer people will be motivated by money to become doctors. the true believers will still apply -- think public defenders in law. There are some very good PD's -- but for the most part, the ranks of the PD are filled with folks who went to subpar law schools or did poorly in mid-tier to better law schools.



The top talent, especially those money-motivated, will seek more profitable pursuits. so, we'd likely see a smaller, less talented pool of potential doctors. presumably, payment rates would be consistent with government lawyers/doctors now. Difficult to justify in light of 150-200k of grad school debt. So, the question becomes, would you become a doctor after undertaking 4 years undergrad with avg debt ~50k, 4 years med school debt ~200k, 3-4 years residency with pay ~40k, to finally start practicing to make $100k? After taxes you're bringing home at best 70k and your debt service is about 20-25k a year? So all of that work, all of that stress, all of that dedication for net 50k/year? You could sell Xerox machines at 18 years old and make that? You could park cars at the Montage and probably make that.



The communist idea of compelled universal health insurance coverage, while warm and fuzzy, is impractical and will lead to myriad unintended consquences -- eg dwindling numbers of talented doctors. not to mention, private insurance + the medi's covers close to 100% -- do they not?
 
[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252842002]I'm not sure the assumption that "poor" people are higher health risks than people who are not poor is true. For 90% of my life growing up I didn't have insurance. My mother's income level could have, in some circles, qualified us as "poor." I almost never went to the doctor and neither did she. Not saying that this is common or not, just saying broad assumptions are useless. If there are data supporting these assumptions, that's one thing. there very well may be. Beside, when I did go to the doctor (broken bone, etc..) the emergency rooms were packed with "poor" people who had the flu or spained ankles or whatever -- they seemed to be receiving care somehow.



What I think is more important in the debate about universal healthcare is how basic principles of a free market economy create unintended consequences. Money motivates. I would assume, though of course I don't know and have no data to back this up -- just something I hear from doctor friends -- is that fewer people will be motivated by money to become doctors. the true believers will still apply -- think public defenders in law. There are some very good PD's -- but for the most part, the ranks of the PD are filled with folks who went to subpar law schools or did poorly in mid-tier to better law schools.



The top talent, especially those money-motivated, will seek more profitable pursuits. so, we'd likely see a smaller, less talented pool of potential doctors. presumably, payment rates would be consistent with government lawyers/doctors now. Difficult to justify in light of 150-200k of grad school debt. So, the question becomes, would you become a doctor after undertaking 4 years undergrad with avg debt ~50k, 4 years med school debt ~200k, 3-4 years residency with pay ~40k, to finally start practicing to make $100k? After taxes you're bringing home at best 70k and your debt service is about 20-25k a year? So all of that work, all of that stress, all of that dedication for net 50k/year? You could sell Xerox machines at 18 years old and make that? You could park cars at the Montage and probably make that.



The communist idea of compelled universal health insurance coverage, while warm and fuzzy, is impractical and will lead to myriad unintended consquences -- eg dwindling numbers of talented doctors. not to mention, private insurance + the medi's covers close to 100% -- do they not?</blockquote>


There is a strong inverse relationship between obesity and socio-economic status. There is some debate over what causes what, but the relationship is there. As such, people who are going to be on Medicaid are more likely to be obese and thus have poorer health than the average person. Look it up and you will find plenty of papers on this relationship.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1252747519][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252704483][quote author="Look4house" date=1252676021][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252674466][quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. </blockquote>


Yeah, bullshit buddy. If I could buy into Medicare I'd do so in a heartbeat. It kicks the snot out of what private insurance pays for right before you become eligilble if you have to pay for it yourself.



ASSuming you can get somebody to cover you at all.</blockquote>


How does Medicare have better coverage than private insurances? You have specifics to share? I would love to hear and broaden my knowledge. Otherwise, I hate to say, your argument is BS. If you don't know much about Medicare, there is a 20% copay for all outpatient visits with no out-of-pocket maximum. Most major private insurances, if not all has a maximum yearly out-of-pocket maximum.</blockquote>


My wife lost her job in December, and I had to retain COBRA for six months because my wife's asthma (she found another job in a couple of months, but the insurance didn't kick in for 90 days past the start date). The first three were on my nickel before the Obama bailout subsidy kicked in. All told I wrote $4000 in checks there, plus prescription co pays at another $600 a month. That didn't include my insurance (which I could bind) that cost another $1200 over the same period. Now that we are on her companies insurance, it still costs $300 a month ($3600 a year) plus we have a $3000 cap in out of pocket expenses/co pays. We hit that last week because this insurance isn't as generous as the last plan. Lucky for me since I'm self employed, and we haven't been to the hospital yet. And I know damn well the $300 a month we are paying is a pittance compared to what the company is paying. All told I will spend <strong>$13,600 </strong>this year alone and <em>I haven't seen the doctor yet</em>.



My dad has had cancer twice in the past three years. His supplemental Medicare insurance is $200 a month. Combining his Medicare and supplemental insurance his out of pocket is less than a hundred bucks a month. When he got cancer the first time, his out of pocket was $20,000 over two months before Medicare kicked in.



I don't know if this is the specifics you were looking for, and I don't mean to speak for anyone else. All I know is what has happened in my immediate family, and in my experience, Medicare has been a far superior provider.



If you don't want socialized health care, great. Send yours over here. I'll take it. I?ll trade you that for what I lack in portability and denial of coverage with the employer based system.</blockquote>


While everyone agrees that private insurance are expensive and it is a financial burden for the average Americans, you argument is about the cost of premiums, not about Medicare has superior covergae than private insurance. Of course Medicare is cheaper, it is a benefit from our government. But if you disclose your health conditions prior to applying to private insurance, once your application is accepted, your coverage should be equivalent to any other insurances including Medicare.</blockquote>


You are understating my argument.



My wife she has asthma but is otherwise in excellent health, and thus is uninsurable on an individual level at any price. There is a ?high risk? state pool that the State offers, but she must remain uninsured for a year in order to qualify for it. The expense of private paying my wifes relatively minor medical condition would be so onerous that I would likely lose my business and have to file for bankruptcy before she qualified. And that doesn?t touch any of the other issues. We can work on those later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top