OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I'd also like to point out that an increasingly large part of the working class doesn't have health insurance. Many low end jobs don't supply it and decent individual health insurance is far from affordable, and if you have any kind of "preexisting condition", may simply be unavailable at any price.

Those at the very bottom end of the scale often do have access to healthcare through Medicaid and other programs. It's those who are trying to climb out of the bottom rung that are screwed. Like NtJedi's single mom example. If she earns more at a job that still doesn't provide insurance, she no longer qualifies for the government programs. So she has no choice but to stay at the bottom.
Employment based health care no longer makes sense, if it ever did. The only reason it stays on, is that insurance companies stand to lose a great deal of profit, and the Republican party has spent years driving the message that government can't work and can't be trusted. And then doing their best to prove it when in power.

Travelgate, Whitewater, Tyson foods, Hillaries amazing stock picks; Fannie Mae, Mac (including to Barrack Hussein Obama), Wm Jefferson, Barry Nagel, the mayor of detroit, PostOfficeGate, Jennifer Flowers, Espry - just a few democratic scandals that leap to mind. So the fact that you act completely ignorant of repeated democratic abuses of power suggests educating you is pointless.

However to change topics to healthcare - which I believe is a great topic for debate.

First, a few things of which you are probably unaware. The federal government is *causing* a great deal of our present problem. And before you dismiss this statement out of hand, let me show you why its so. When you think healthcare, you probably think ever increasing costs - prices that are increasing at 10+% every year.

So, every year, the federal govt. mandates a certain level of care. If you are a medicare or medicaid recipient you are entitlted to certain procedures. All well and good. However, the federal govt has never once in the *history* of the program paid for the full cost of these programs. So what happens is the federal government says you have to provide these services - and then doesn't provide the money for it.

Currently, the federal government is reimbursing at about 66% of the actual cost of providing for the service.

So, now consider if you are a hospital - your level of service is mandated. You can't deny an indigent patient medical services, yet if the service cost you $1000 and the federal govt only gives you %650 what are you going to do?

Unlike the federal government which can operate in a deficit seemingly forever, hospitals pretty much have to balance their books every year. So that $350 cost gets spread around to the people that can pay it - both insured and cash basis patients.

And every time we expand federal programs - such as this new program 'for the children' that Obama is proposing, or the prescription benefit program - the situation just gets worse.

This is one of the many examples of federal programs having unanticipated consequences. There is another problem with the federal approach.

First they are creating a sense of entitlement. I have actually heard people say they were *owed* a quadruple bypass. And they got it for free.. at a cost of over $176,000. In what way does an entitlement program encourage one to plan and conserve for ones medical needs? The fact is - it doesn't. As long as someone will foot the bill people will oversubscribe the service.

The second larger problem with the idea of health insurance - is that it no longer *IS* health insurance. I am all in favor of health insurance - but its no longer even possible to buy that in the US today.

The idea of health insurance as it was practised long ago was that *I* was responsible for the first X thousand dollars of my medical coverage. After that amount X was reached the insurer stepped in with something between 80%-100% of the coverage costs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am in favor of the government providing basic medical services. Prenatal care, innoculations, emergeancy health care, etc.

But I am amazed that the left - the same people that worry about big government intrusion into our bedrooms (gay marriage etc), and our conversations (wireless wiretaps) are so willing to willy nilly cede complete control of their health care to a government beaurocracy.

There are a number of other factors that contribute to why our healthcare works - or doesn't work - the way it does. So, I'll give one more example: it costs more than $700 million dollars to bring a product to market in the united states. Seven Hundred MILLION. Thats because of the rules and regulations for testing, and product liability. But think about it - it means that *only* the very large companies can afford to drug trials here. And what happens when you restrict competition- prices go up.

It is easy to believe in slogans. But the good news, if I can call it that, is that the damage that barry can do in this arena is limited. He will propose more porgrams, and borrow more money to throw at it. And create a little bit more of an entitltement state - but in the end, its unsustainable even in its present form.

It is ironic - but the nucleus of McCains healthcare plan actually has the seeds of how to get out of some of this mess.
First, give every american $5000 dollars a year toward healthcare costs. Bankable or savable. But 5000 a year will pay for all the usual innoculations, and broken bones, and dental xrays. And then make things above that *your* responsbility.

Anyway.. I'm tired of typing = )

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

First, a few things of which you are probably unaware. The federal government is *causing* a great deal of our present problem. And before you dismiss this statement out of hand, let me show you why its so. When you think healthcare, you probably think ever increasing costs - prices that are increasing at 10+% every year.

I have to comment here, in the middle of the thought. It just seems that you are unaware that the problem is the bureaucracy itself. It's not *just* healthcare that it is bungling up. It is screwing up just about everything that it has a thumb in, and why? It's not simply because NO government can handle large projects responsibly, it's because OUR government can't handle projects responsibly. If people would quit towing a party line, and quit making illogical attacks against the "sworn political enemy", maybe we could work out a governmental paradigm that is actually effectual.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Currently, the federal government is reimbursing at about 66% of the actual cost of providing for the service.

So, now consider if you are a hospital - your level of service is mandated. You can't deny an indigent patient medical services, yet if the service cost you $1000 and the federal govt only gives you %650 what are you going to do?

Unlike the federal government which can operate in a deficit seemingly forever, hospitals pretty much have to balance their books every year. So that $350 cost gets spread around to the people that can pay it - both insured and cash basis patients...

...This is one of the many examples of federal programs having unanticipated consequences. There is another problem with the federal approach.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a national health care system, and everything to do with our dysfunctional government. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how so many other industrialized nations pull off the illusion of accomplishing the impossible feat of comprehensive national health care?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The second larger problem with the idea of health insurance - is that it no longer *IS* health insurance. I am all in favor of health insurance - but its no longer even possible to buy that in the US today.

The idea of health insurance as it was practised long ago was that *I* was responsible for the first X thousand dollars of my medical coverage. After that amount X was reached the insurer stepped in with something between 80%-100% of the coverage costs.

Ummmm, the way that insurance in general is supposed to work, is much more simple than that, and is the essence of how "socialized" programs like national health care could and should work. The basic idea is to statistically determine the odds of severe illness, and project the costs of dealing with that illness. In abstract terms, this means that if we say that 1 in 10 people will eventually suffer from a malady that costs $1000 dollars to treat, but we have no idea which 10% of the people, then we simply need everyone to to pay in $100 to cover the expenses of those who are afflicted.

One of the reasons that this system is starting to break down as it is (not to bring up greed from every party involved), is the skyrocketing instances of cancer, heart disease, and all manner of other extremely expensive ailments in America. Odd, when you consider how many of these diseases in fact could be avoided or reduced in severity if proper measures were put in place (like making sure everyone has adequate access to early screening to detect cancer when it can be dealt with at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the risk).

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

It is ironic - but the nucleus of McCains healthcare plan actually has the seeds of how to get out of some of this mess.
First, give every american $5000 dollars a year toward healthcare costs. Bankable or savable. But 5000 a year will pay for all the usual innoculations, and broken bones, and dental xrays. And then make things above that *your* responsbility.

I'm glad that -someone- thinks that McCain's plan is not only an actual plan, but a good one at that.

The problem with McCain's solution, is first, it's a tax credit, NOT a check for $5000 (where in hell would THAT money come from? 300mil+ people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year if it were true). There's an enormous, gaping hole in this idea though - the vast majority of the uninsured in America don't even make enough (and therefore generate anywhere near enough if Federal Income Taxes) to fully benefit from this.

But really, the boner here, is that if he really somehow managed to find $1.5 trillion (every year!) to throw at the health care problem, he could make it go away MUCH more easily than by forcing the individual to deal with things.

Oh, and a little anecdote, because I know everyone loves my anecdotes. After suffering severe migraines and other terrible side effects from all of the pharmaceutical antihistamines I tried (too bad I can't have ephedra, it worked wonders, but some people "abuse" it, so much for liberty), I was given a prescription for Allegra. Well, Allegra worked quite well for me, and while I was eligible for the Oregon Health Plan, I was paying $15/month for that medicine, and they picked up the rest. But once I was off the health plan, the cost went to $90/month. $3 a tablet, just for an antihistime. Over $1000/year that I can't pay right now, that McCain's plan will not even touch because I earn so little in my current state of health, that I don't even pay taxes at all, and thus would not receive any "credit".

<3

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I have to comment here, in the middle of the thought. It just seems that you are unaware that the problem is the bureaucracy itself. It's not *just* healthcare that it is bungling up. It is screwing up just about everything that it has a thumb in, and why? It's not simply because NO government can handle large projects responsibly, it's because OUR government can't handle projects responsibly. If people would quit towing a party line, and quit making illogical attacks against the "sworn political enemy", maybe we could work out a governmental paradigm that is actually effectual.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a national health care system, and everything to do with our dysfunctional government. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how so many other industrialized nations pull off the illusion of accomplishing the impossible feat of comprehensive national health care?

Ummmm, the way that insurance in general is supposed to work, is much more simple than that, and is the essence of how "socialized" programs like national health care could and should work. The basic idea is to statistically determine the odds of severe illness, and project the costs of dealing with that illness. In abstract terms, this means that if we say that 1 in 10 people will eventually suffer from a malady that costs $1000 dollars to treat, but we have no idea which 10% of the people, then we simply need everyone to to pay in $100 to cover the expenses of those who are afflicted.

One of the reasons that this system is starting to break down as it is (not to bring up greed from every party involved), is the skyrocketing instances of cancer, heart disease, and all manner of other extremely expensive ailments in America. Odd, when you consider how many of these diseases in fact could be avoided or reduced in severity if proper measures were put in place (like making sure everyone has adequate access to early screening to detect cancer when it can be dealt with at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the risk).

I'm glad that -someone- thinks that McCain's plan is not only an actual plan, but a good one at that.

The problem with McCain's solution, is first, it's a tax credit, NOT a check for $5000 (where in hell would THAT money come from? 300mil+ people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year if it were true). There's an enormous, gaping hole in this idea though - the vast majority of the uninsured in America don't even make enough (and therefore generate anywhere near enough if Federal Income Taxes) to fully benefit from this.

But really, the boner here, is that if he really somehow managed to find $1.5 trillion (every year!) to throw at the health care problem, he could make it go away MUCH more easily than by forcing the individual to deal with things.

Oh, and a little anecdote, because I know everyone loves my anecdotes. After suffering severe migraines and other terrible side effects from all of the pharmaceutical antihistamines I tried (too bad I can't have ephedra, it worked wonders, but some people "abuse" it, so much for liberty), I was given a prescription for Allegra. Well, Allegra worked quite well for me, and while I was eligible for the Oregon Health Plan, I was paying $15/month for that medicine, and they picked up the rest. But once I was off the health plan, the cost went to $90/month. $3 a tablet, just for an antihistime. Over $1000/year that I can't pay right now, that McCain's plan will not even touch because I earn so little in my current state of health, that I don't even pay taxes at all, and thus would not receive any "credit".

<3

Jim, I think you are unaware of the current status of US tax laws.

Simplifying it - a bit.

Suppose your income were 20,000. and you had kids. and you were below a poverty line. The government gives you a refund despite the fact that you have paid no taxes. A portion of this is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

When you file your taxes, things like deductions and tax credits increase the size of your deduction.

Secondly, I didn't say I agreed with McCains plan in its entirety - I said it had the seeds of some solutions to our present health care mess. FAR more than Obamas blanket expansion.

Thirdly, as others have alluded you are comparing apples and rocks - but I suggest its more like spaceships and boogars. When americans think about health care, they think about going to the doctor of their choice, and getting cutting edge medical care.

Comparing that to another nations national health care really is like comparings space ships to boogars. Please do compare american health care to any second or third world country.
You might think that unfair - fine. Would you agree that UK would be an acceptable comparison?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Jim, I think you are unaware of the current status of US tax laws.

Simplifying it - a bit.

Suppose your income were 20,000. and you had kids. and you were below a poverty line. The government gives you a refund despite the fact that you have paid no taxes. A portion of this is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

When you file your taxes, things like deductions and tax credits increase the size of your deduction.

Tax credits do not just give you free money. There are two ways to reduce tax burden - deductions, which indirectly reduce taxes, by reducing taxable income - and credits, which are directly applied to the amount of taxes that you owe. YES, you can get a refund because of credits, but only up to the amount of money already deducted from your pay, for taxes, and in a case like this, ONLY from the amount deducted for FICA. So in my case, I could file taxes (again, I am below the -EXEMPT- line currently), but as I owe no taxes, I would receive nothing. McCain's plan would not do anything whatsoever to rectify my situation and help me get on the path to becoming a more overtly productive citizen again.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Thirdly, as others have alluded you are comparing apples and rocks - but I suggest its more like spaceships and boogars. When americans think about health care, they think about going to the doctor of their choice, and getting cutting edge medical care.

Comparing that to another nations national health care really is like comparings space ships to boogars. Please do compare american health care to any second or third world country.
You might think that unfair - fine. Would you agree that UK would be an acceptable comparison?

Well this seems like an odd argument. Money is money. The basic issue of who pays the money (whether us directly, our insurance company, or a decently organized governmental body), does not have any direct bearing on the quality of the product. Hell, we could have the FEMA people do our health care, and yes, I would be scared too. Or we could have the military organize it, and they would pour so much money into it ($600 stethoscopes, anyone?) that we couldn't help but smile.

But hey, I will bite. Let's compare our current health care system, in an unbiased manner, with say, the health care system in the UK. But wait! The World Health Organization has already performed this task for us. In fact, they rated all countries in the entire world. I won't completely spam the forum by listing every nation, I'll just list from the top, until we get to the good old U S of A. Should be a short list..... right?


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Oh, oops. I guess that was a wrong assumption. Apparently, according to the people who know more about these things than you and I put together, think that basically every nation that has instituted nationalized health care (and even some who haven't!) have better systems than we do.

Also, we spent over 15% of our total GDP on health care this past year. Many of the countries above us on the list, spent <10%. Now, if our GDP/capita is higher than most of them, wouldn't it stand to reason that we should be able to get better coverage than they do (at least, spending more, should get a better product, right?), while still paying LESS than we currently do.



And just for the record (for you too, NTJedi), there is no reason that we couldn't adopt a sort of "half-stance" on the subject, where we simply guarantee a minimum level of coverage for all citizens. By taking care of basics (I've never once sat in a dentist's chair, in 33 years of my life, for example), we do not create as immense a burden on the taxpayers, nor responsibility for the agency in charge, in relation to the amount of benefit gained by the nation as a whole. If you would like, I can go and dig up the articles that I have read that illustrate how studies have looked into the correlation between basic health care needs, and lost days (or years!) of work under our current system. I can assure you now (but I'll find it again if you like), that the verdict was that providing a baseline amount of assistance to the uninsured, would far more than pay for itself in terms of productivity.

Also, since I mentioned the absence of a dentist in my life, let me point out another issue that this would solve. You see, I don't currently have any terrible health problems due to my teeth (I don't think!), however, I do have a few cavities that I am a bit worried about, that should be filled. I can't afford a dentist to do this relatively routine maintenance, however if one of my teeth abscesses, then whichever dental surgeon is unlucky enough to find me at their door, cannot refuse to treat me if the poison from that abscess could threaten my life (it's the law). BUT, bear in mind the actual cost of dealing with such a problem. Bear also in mind, that YOU (the universal you, meaning everyone who is indirectly impacted by the failures of our health care system) will ultimately pay for my treatment. How is this? It's simple enough, because you see, I can't afford medical care. I can't walk in on my own to receive it, but if they are obligated to save my life, they will do so, and they will bill me. And just because I receive a bill, doesn't mean that I magically also have money to pay it. So, it goes unpaid, it goes to collections, and that particular doctor is out several hundred dollars of income that he is entitled to. Now, the effect averages out, as most doctors (or hospitals) deal with this on an ongoing basis, it's the downside of being a lifegiver. However, this directly translates into higher costs, which may annoy you, but the real travesty is that it increases the costs of care for people who can barely afford it anyway.

Accounting for basic needs first, will bring the system closer to balance. Why can't we continue to pay our physicians more than other countries? Do you know how many people can get basic (and necessary) health care for the cost of one Stealth Bomber? I know, the "Stealth Bomber" argument is a bit trite by now, but the point is just a comparison between a small sliver of our military spending, and the vast amounts of good we could accomplish for the people (which, as already stated, can easily pay for itself up to a certain level).