National Health Care-Obama Plan

[makattak]

I'm sorry, I think you lost me. Are you saying we have about the same amount of government involvement/regulation in health care as the other OECD countries?

If you'll note I said it MAY not be true.

Simply because the government doesn't have total control over healthcare does not mean it is not involved in every aspect of our healthcare- varying levels of government dictate what must be covered by insurance, incentives only for employer-provided insurance, inter alia.

The areas where government is LEAST involved-- lasik and plastic surgery-- are the areas with decreasing prices.

Funny how that works.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I never claimed these anecdotes were phony, I just said they are of little use. I can come up with plenty of anecdotes that make gun ownership look terrible, but the statistics that show otherwise are much more meaningful. Horror stories are more publicized than success stories and sharing them makes a great emotional appeal but nothing more than that.

Fair enough.  I just want to be sure we all recognize that long wait times for major operations is a real problem under socialized health systems, a problem that is missing from our current system.

[Iain]

Fair enough.  I just want to be sure we all recognize that long wait times for major operations is a real problem under socialized health systems, a problem that is missing from our current system.

Genuine question - what about wait times for people without insurance? Say I can't afford the insurance premiums quoted for me, and I get a hernia - what then?

[BridgeRunner]

Genuine question - what about wait times for people without insurance? Say I can't afford the insurance premiums quoted for me, and I get a hernia - what then?

Those don't count.  People who can't afford insurance premiums plus out of pocket costs for care are a myth created by the liberals.   

[De Selby]

Point one is wrong. As you did not deign to back up your statement with anything, I will not waste me time with rebuttal.

Point two is stupid. There are "orders of magnitude" of difference between COST and PRICE. You and your ilk have confused the two and think that if you lower the price, it's the same as lowering the cost.

That is utter foolishness! Lowering the price without affecting the cost (what socialized medicine does) simply increases demand for services and RAISES the cost. That's why you end up with rationing and denial of services under socialized medicine.

But, it's ok, the proponents of socialized medicine SWEAR that would never happen here.

I'm glad we can rely on the good intentions behind a government program.

'
Mak, point one is covered in the only study that's been posted on this thread.  Look at any international comparison on quality of care and results; try to find one that puts the US out front.

Ten times the price compared to other countries is not uncommon for procedures.

Headless, that quote on wait times is so selective that it's obvious you had to search to find a way to cut something that would fit your thesis, not the other way around.   The overall conclusion of the report is that the US does not improve on wait times for most procedures; only slightly compared to other countries on elective (ie, non-emergency, non-life threatening issues) surgeries.  And for that we pay ten times the price.

[grampster]

Sorry, the whole notion that we are entitled to something for nothing is an anethema and will destroy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If if a man will not work, he will not eat.

Those friends that I have that are socialistic lefties are always good at talking, but very low on the doing.

A lawyer friend's wife, who is a bleeding heart lefty, asked me if I shouldn't think about giving back some of my social security benefits (which I contributed to for over 50 years, that statist politicians stole) because I
had also set up my own pension and have a company pension as well.

I told her when she opened up her 2nd home on the lake to the homeless, I might think about it.

[longeyes]

All of these great foreign welfare states that purport to offer so much more for so much less are, in fact, slowly but surely UNWINDING their social welfare programs because they are fiscally unsupportable.  You can't have one worker paying the health care bills of one other worker any more than you can have that same ratio with retirement costs in general. Meanwhile, Europe is busy trying to "solve" this problem by bringing in as many young potential tax serfs from foreign cultures as possible.  Too bad most of those imports end up as tax drains rather than economic pluses.  As for the impact on the national heritage, the less said the better.

I think you cannot talk about national health care plans without talking about the underlying cultural agenda that is behind them.  We talk around it when we discuss people getting something for nothing; that's only one element of the great transformation that the Left envisions.

[Iain]

I think you cannot talk about national health care plans without talking about the underlying cultural agenda that is behind them.  We talk around it when we discuss people getting something for nothing; that's only one element of the great transformation that the Left envisions.

Yes, yes we know. Genocide, eugenics. But we also are constantly reassured by you that "the time will come", the "frogs" are getting warm and "something" is going to happen.

[longeyes]

I suggest you do a refresher course on history, especially European history, although that may be verboten in Europe by now under the new pan-Euro regime.

If you want to see the future of your continent you might want to look at the Hell's Angels in Denmark.  They are at the flashpoint of the whole bloody mess.

"Something" has already happened.  If you don't know what it is, I don't think I can help you too much.

[longeyes]

And, by the way, that's a pretty feeble rebuttal to my statement.  I think you know the kind of shape Europe's economy is in.  America's not the only land in serious trouble.  Are you denying that the welfare state model of Europe is crumbling?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Genuine question - what about wait times for people without insurance? Say I can't afford the insurance premiums quoted for me, and I get a hernia - what then?

Wait times are the same whether you have insurance or not.  All the insurance does is reimburse for the costs of the treatment.

Let's not forget what insurance does.  Insurance protects you against financial risk.  The insurance doesn't provide any medical care, doctors do that.  All the insurance does is limit your financial risk should you need costly treatment.

Those don't count.  People who can't afford insurance premiums plus out of pocket costs for care are a myth created by the liberals.   

Those people surely exist.  I was one for a while.  I'm still unsympathetic. 

If you can't afford insurance then the solution is to work harder, improve your situation, reprioritize your fiances, and so forth.  (This assumes that you want some outside help mitigating the fiancial risks, many people do not.)  Being poor doesn't justify dumping your health care costs onto everyone else.

And of course, if you are genuinely poor and need medical treatment you'll still get it under our current system.  The hospital may come after every last cent you have should you fail to pay them for the services they performed for you.  But you'll still get your treatment.

[Monkeyleg]

And of course, if you are genuinely poor and need medical treatment you'll still get it under our current system.

Yes, and you'll get the very same level of treatment as those with the very best insurance...at no cost.

[Iain]

Yes, and you'll get the very same level of treatment as those with the very best insurance...at no cost.

So I get the same treatment as the super-rich - and I don't have to pay? I get access to the same surgeons, the same follow-ups, the same on-going care? Even though, as far as insurers are concerned, I am a Ferrari Enzo - expensive and a crash is inevitable?

Sounds perfect. - http://www.cnbc.com/id/31099365

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So I get the same treatment as the super-rich - and I don't have to pay? I get access to the same surgeons, the same follow-ups, the same on-going care? Even though, as far as insurers are concerned, I am a Ferrari Enzo - expensive and a crash is inevitable?

Sounds perfect.

You don't have any problem making someone else pay for your care?

 :|

[Iain]

You don't have any problem making someone else pay for your care?

I like breathing.

Pandora's Box got opened a long time ago for most people. For me it is only just being opened, people like me died in childhood until the latter part of the last century. One day they are going to find a way to inject healthy genes into our lungs - and it is going to cost a shedload.

I have no idea of the answers. None. But I ain't dying younger than I have to thanks.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I like breathing.

Pandora's Box got opened a long time ago for most people. For me it is only just being opened, people like me died in childhood until the latter part of the last century. One day they are going to find a way to inject healthy genes into our lungs - and it is going to cost a shedload.

I have no idea of the answers. None. But I ain't dying younger than I have to thanks.

I'm not asking why you want to live.  I'm asking why you think keeping yourself alive should be someone else's cost to bear.

[longeyes]

Well, good thing you don't live here then and may face the prospect of ObamaCare.  ObamaCare isn't thrilled with infirm people, especially older infirm people.  Expendable, you know.  They just get in the way of vibrant young Democratic voters.

[Iain]

btw - my initial 'sounds perfect' comment was a little sardonic. I find it somewhat unbelievable that everyone gets the same level of care, and that some are not expected to pay. I can believe everyone gets some care, and some are not expected to pay. But I doubt that there aren't at least two tiers of treatment available - am I wrong?

I'm not asking why you want to live.  I'm asking why you think keeping yourself alive should be someone else's cost to bear.

I know top rate taxpayers who talk about taxes and the NHS and then qualify it with 'but I'm not talking about you mate'. I am the reality.

There are two kids with the same disease, which can be treated at significant expense. One can pay, and one can't. Is this the most moral of situations? Or even a more moral situation? That's you or your kid, it's emotive sure, but it's also daily reality. I don't know the answers, but I like breathing.

[Monkeyleg]

I find it somewhat unbelievable that everyone gets the same level of care, and that some are not expected to pay.

The ear surgeon who did two surgeries on me works out of Froedert hospital in Milwaukee (the Medical College of Wisconsin). The two surgeries cost over $60,000, of which $24,000 was for the surgeon's fees. He's nationally renowned.

When I went to his office, there were plenty of people there who obviously didn't have any money, but were there nonetheless.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when i had my detached retina worked on i was gonna use a local doctor  a client whose home i was working on was insistent i use his guy.  so he drove me to the wilner eye clinic at johns hopkins. got my stuff done.  wonder of wonder my insurance was taken there i paid the same 10 bucks there as at home  and even better one of the associates there does twice a month road trips to my home town so after first trip i got treated close to home

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There are two kids with the same disease, which can be treated at significant expense. One can pay, and one can't. Is this the most moral of situations? Or even a more moral situation? That's you or your kid, it's emotive sure, but it's also daily reality. I don't know the answers, but I like breathing.

It would seem rather obvious that if you need lots of expensive medical care to keep breathing, the thing to do would be to work your posterior off so that you can afford the care you need.  Work every waking moment if that's what it takes, don't spend a penny you don't have to spend, devote your life literally to saving your life.  If this is what it takes to preserve your life, then there should be nothing more important than that.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly makes an effort to earn a real income, and who places their health care as a high priority in their finances, would be unable to afford a decent high deductible health insurance plan to cover major medical emergencies.

[Iain]

It would seem rather obvious that if you need lots of expensive medical care to keep breathing, the thing to do would be to work your posterior off so that you can afford the care you need.  Work every waking moment if that's what it takes, don't spend a penny you don't have to spend, devote your life literally to saving your life.  If this is what it takes to preserve your life, then there should be nothing more important than that.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly makes an effort to earn a real income, and who places their health care as a high priority in their finances, would be unable to afford a decent high deductible health insurance plan to cover major medical emergencies.

I find this astounding. You really think this is the answer?

Next time I chat to some of my fellow sufferers online I'll tell the 21 year olds with 25% lung function and diabetes, on liver and lung transplant waiting lists, constant IV antibiotics, ports, PEG feeding and the rest that they really should go get a job and earn a "real income" despite the fact that most of them were lucky to stay in school until 16, let alone pick up any qualifications.

They sound real employable, no qualifications after 16, lots of time off sick. Hire me a dozen and I'll pay them enough to live on and cover their enormous medical expenses.

I don't think you have a clue.

[sanglant]

In other words, people that are eligible for medicare/medicaid/ssi but are to good for it? obama's screwup won't help them one bit, just give 'em morphine till they die and move on.

[Iain]

eh.

[De Selby]

Yeah, there's one other bug (besides the obvious one Iain nailed) in this "work hard" theory:  if you need to buy your own insurance for a special problem, it is guaranteed not to be covered, because the insurance company will underwrite out coverage for everything you're known to need care for. 

That leaves you working to pay the full prices of care, which in America are too high for 99 percent of the population to handle.  The prices for major care of the sort Iain described are high enough that anything short of double-digit millions in cash is easy to exhaust.

The line about poor people getting free care is not accurate.  Hospitals only have to give emergency care; once they stabilize you enough to have answered the acute issues that led to presentation, they can discharge you and refuse to offer any other care (and they do.)  So, for example, a long term condition that destroys the major organs of your body would not be covered by a hospital until organ failure led to an emergency....before that point, you either find a charity (those don't cover everyone) or try to pay (impossible for everyone who doesn't have the money of a Saudi prince.)

That's not exactly "the exact same care" a millionaire gets.