Why not Universal Healthcare?

[Feanor]

O Sir T, the world is releaved to know that rational Americans exist.

[GMichael]

I see that this thread hasn't gotten any better. Let me know when everyone is done sticking their tongues out at each other.

[ForeverAutumn]

You may consider it uncool, but it's most certainly true. There must be something like a Napoleon complex with you guys.

As for condescending, you either don't know what it means or you've never read your own posts. Obviously you have no idea of the meaning of the word demographics, but it looks kewl to throw it out, doesn't it?.

It's noticeable, and has been commented on by others on other sites on which I post. Buy, ya know, it's funny that it just popped up it's ugly head here since you've arrived.

And I haven't caught any flak for this line of discussion, only from differing ideas and that isn't really flak, it was simply discussion. Actually, most thik you're the dick setting fire to the small, perfect, british possessions vs the big, bad, USA discussion, er...., flame war.

I do notice that since your arrival here, (and it's funny that your only posts are here) is that tendency to dog-pile on the USA has ramped up significantly. Is that just a coincidence? I dunno know about that. Previously it was just one rancorous old man who was a site joke, but here you go, proudly flinging your poo like a monkey from a tree and drawing support from other heretofore nice, friendly, inncent, second-worlders where countries made no difference, at least until you arrived. And I'm not the only one who noticed that.

BTW, I notice you haven't disputed my facts either, but simply try to put me down for stating them. It ain't workin', mate. No apology.

So, deal with it. You're simply a rabble-rouser with really nothing to contribute to an audio forum except an ego and an attitude. You're just here for the fight.

Geez, no wonder this site is dying...with a welcome like that!

Mark, why don't you just go back to talking about the issue at hand instead of attacking the non-americans who are only trying to provide a different viewpoint.

If you stopped being defensive for five minutes, you might actually find something of value in our experiences with our own health care systems.

[markw]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Sorry, that don't sit too well with me, what with living in the greater NYC metro area which, surprisingly enough, has just about as many people as oz in it's entirety. Apparently it does with you, though.

And, I hate to say this, but I wouldn't be too quick to accuse others of being defensive.

[bobsticks]

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

Amen breh...and recently too...

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

As always, elegant...and succinct. The point that I was trying to make...and did so rather inelegantly and inefficiently to Kex was just this...and the fact that, in reality, there are two pies...one that represents taxation and one that represents revenue. Whether everyone becomes elligible for "Medicaid" the bills will still come. Ultimately the solution will involve many of the suggestions posited here:

...legal reform, taxation, cost-cutting and accomodation on many, many sides...

[Feanor]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Sorry, that don't sit too well with me, what with living in the greater NYC metro area which, surprisingly enough, has just about as many people as oz in it's entirety. Apparently it does with you, though.

And, I hate to say this, but I wouldn't be too quick to accuse others of being defensive.

It's really too bad that you are incapable of reasoned arguement.

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.

[bobsticks]

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.

...that may depend on what locker room...or bath house...you're in...

[nightflier]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Mark, it's these kinds of insults that give your point of view the impact of "a fart in a hurricane."

I may not agree with ClothEars' point of view, but he's being a whole lot more civil in making it.

[markw]

It's really too bad that you are incapable of reasoned arguement.

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.

Anyhow, here's your "reasoned response" whe you're in informed that you're comparinng a plan for 300 million to a plan that has only has to cover 20 million.

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

Actually, feanor, I don't think your dick is bigger than a chipmunks.

[bobsticks]

Actually, feanor, I don't think your dick is bigger than a chipmunks.

Seriously, now you're just out of line. There's room for alot of opposing points of view and, certainly, some disagreement but that was unnecessary...

[markw]

Mark, it's these kinds of insults that give your point of view the impact of "a fart in a hurricane."

I may not agree with ClothEars' point of view, but he's being a whole lot more civil in making it.

Perhaps when these overly proud simpletons realize that it's a lot simpler to design a workable plan for 20 to 30 million in a few population centers as opposed to one for 300 million spread across an entire continent, and then some, then perhaps then I'll tone it down.

Until then, I'll just respond in the simplist manner since they obviously cannot grasp the big picture.

[markw]

Seriously, now you're just out of line. There's room for alot of opposing points of view and, certainly, some disagreement but that was unnecessary...

I apologize to chipmunks everywhere.

[nightflier]

Watchdog Groups Expose Healthcare Industry Lobbyist Spending

New details have emerged about how the healthcare industry has been trying to sway the debate in Congress. A study by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics has uncovered never-before-seen webs of campaign contributions from outside lobbyists and their clients to key members of Congress. Between January 2007 and June 2009, Max Baucus, the chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, collected contributions from thirty-seven outside lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, PhRMA, as well as thirty-six lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen as their client. In all, eleven major health and insurance firms had their contributions to Baucus boosted through extra donations from ten or more of their outside lobbyists. Some thirty-two members of Congress got money from ten or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for twenty-four members.

[markw]

For the life of me, I've never understood who the practice of lobbying has been allowed to continue for as long as it has. And this has been going on for along time and both parties benefit from it.

So, hoccum it still thrives, and who is gonna stop it.

Like I said a long, long time ago here, cost contaimnent first, then worry about a plan.

[Feanor]

Watchdog Groups Expose Healthcare Industry Lobbyist Spending

New details have emerged about how the healthcare industry has been trying to sway the debate in Congress. A study by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics has uncovered never-before-seen webs of campaign contributions from outside lobbyists and their clients to key members of Congress. Between January 2007 and June 2009, Max Baucus, the chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, collected contributions from thirty-seven outside lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, PhRMA, as well as thirty-six lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen as their client. In all, eleven major health and insurance firms had their contributions to Baucus boosted through extra donations from ten or more of their outside lobbyists. Some thirty-two members of Congress got money from ten or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for twenty-four members.

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.

[GMichael]

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.

Don't think many will argue with you there. This is the main way that corruption affects laws here.

[markw]

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I was way ahead of you.

economics lesson for the day: The larger the infrastructure, the larger the opportunity for corruption.

So, what would you recommend to solve it?

[dean_martin]

whew! after two weeks of being swamped at work (and trying to keep up with Mark last week), I've tried to catch up on this discussion. As I said from the outset, my views are limited to what I see in my profession, i.e., medical bills for the uninsured are 3 to 5 times higher than what health care providers will accept as payment from insurance companies of the insured and the constant wrangling between interests over the "real cost" of medical liability.

In catching up on this thread, SirT's suggestion of an incremental approach jumped out at me. Indeed, we are discussing a fundamental change without an historical model to follow. An example of just how fundamental this is can be seen in the law. In 1944, the US Supreme Court determined that insurance is a business that can be regulated by Congress pursuant to the commerce clause of the Constitution. In response, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 which essentially leaves the regulation of insurance to the states. This wikipedia link provides a very simple description of the Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act

Any federal health care plan that incorporates private insurance will have to address the law as it stands now and change it with respect to health insurance which will most likely change 70 years of practice in that industry. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying that the magnitude of the task might require incremental steps. If step one is regulation of health insurance, then Congress could effectively regulate premiums, preexisting conditions and acceptance of coverage, and cancellation on the consumer side. On the insurance company side, it could regulate pooling, payments to health care providers for particular procedures and any other mechanism that could possibly defray the cost to insurance companies of added coverage up to and including subsidies. Of course none of this will result in "free" health care nor coverage for everyone and insurance companies won't have a huge profit incentive to stay in business. But, it could expand coverage to more people in "phase one" of a long-term or multi-step plan that could eventually include changes to medicare and medicaid for those who still can't afford private insurance because they're unemployed, disabled, etc.

My doctor told me last week that 80% of his income comes from government sources - medicare and medicaid. If private insurance coverage is extended to more, then it seems logical that medicare and medicaid payouts will go down. Strike a balance between federal subsidies to private insurance pools for expansion of coverage on one hand and medicare/medicaid savings due to more folks being covered under private insurance on the other, then we're not actually spending more on health care but we are covering more people.

[3LB]

What is this obsession with illegal immigrants already?

This really needs to be asked: Is it really be so costly to give healthcare to illegal immigrants? I mean, what if we turned them away? I'm not even going to ask who will do those jobs we typically don't want to do ourselves, but all we need is for these immigrants all around us to spread an epidemic.

And let's be honest, is that really such a drain on our healthcare? More so than the fat paychecks of drug company CEOs, their teams of lawyers and lobbyists, and their political contributions?

Ahem, weren't we all illegal immigrants at one point or another in our history?

All points true, especially the second point, which is why the system needs to be fixed before a plan is put into place. Trust me, Mexicans aren't coming up here for the prescription drugs, many of which are still cheaper there than they are here, and have been for decades. Amoxicillin is available over the counter.

Dental care is cheaper there as well (well, I should say, from the American perspective). I know a few people who live in Arizona who get dental work done in Mexico.

[3LB]

Sorry, but I must offer this criticism of Americans in general: they have a fear of anything run by government that can only be described as pathological. People all over the world mistrust governments but few with the intense irrationality that afflicts a very significant portion of the US population.

Government for the people, by the people, eh?

Mistrust of a government isn't altogether a bad thing, and in some circumstances, its a healthy thing - blind faith in a government usually just gets you killed.

I do find it ironic that with so many Americans who express distrust of their gov't, actually leave so much of their lives in the hands of the gov't, blindly. So few Americans vote or even try to educate themselves on the issues at hand. Why do we so distrust an entity which we ourselves are supposed to have power over? hhmmm...

All the issues we've discussed on these boards the last few weeks and the overlaying sentiment seems to be that we (us non-politicians) are without voice or recourse. We cannot continue to believe that a gov't whose pockets are lined by wealthy lobbies will ever do what is in the best interests of the people. We get the gov't we deserve.

Before we address jobs, immigration, healthcare...you name it, there has to be some major house cleaning in this country, and it starts with the lazy-arsed voters (yours truly included).

[GMichael]

I cast my vote, but unfortunately, it's always for the person I dislike the least. Never for anyone I actually think will help. I would if I could.

[nightflier]

Don't think many will argue with you there. This is the main way that corruption affects laws here.

...the party that takes the moral high ground so often (Republicans) are so entrenched in this corruption? I mean I can understand Democrats because they want to please everybody, but Republicans, especially those on the far right, are supposed to stand up to this, no?

During the Carter-Reagan years millions of Democrats switched parties because they thought that Republicans stood for something more respectable, and many of them did. But in the Bush 2.0 years, that same party has embraced doctrinaire corporatism at the expense of competition. Big pharma, Insurance, the HMOs, and the legal vultures that surround them could always rely on centrist politicians to get ridiculously one-sided bills and measures introduced, but with the help of the far right in recent years, they gained significant momentum to get them passed. It's pretty disgusting to hear these same politicians invoke godly virtues in one breath while being bullhorns for the big corporations. Maybe they are so owned that their religious fervor is merely to assuage their guilt.

On that small detail, ClothEars has made a legitimate point. One wonders why the far right is so vehemently opposed to universal healthcare, something good ol' JC would be all for if he were alive today. I know dragging religion into this is not to everyone's liking, but aren't we talking about taking care of the sick and unfortunate? I don't see how that can be done without invoking the one biggest moral influence in our society.

[Feanor]

Perhaps when these overly proud simpletons realize that it's a lot simpler to design a workable plan for 20 to 30 million in a few population centers as opposed to one for 300 million spread across an entire continent, and then some, then perhaps then I'll tone it down.

Until then, I'll just respond in the simplist manner since they obviously cannot grasp the big picture.

Mark, you seriously underestimate the complexities of governing in Canada. Being 10% the size doesn't make in 1/10 the problem. There are significant cultural, regional, and federal vs. provincial issues.

For starters, you might be interested to know, (or more you aren't), that there isn't a Canadian heathcare system; there are 10 provincial heathcare systems and they are definitely not identical.

[3LB]

I cast my vote, but unfortunately, it's always for the person I dislike the least. Never for anyone I actually think will help. I would if I could.

I have a simple plan...stop voting for the incumbant. Politicians need to answer to voters and not special interests. We as voters need to send a message, that if want to be re-elected you better jump through your ass for us. Of course, outlawing lobbies would also be a start, but we have too many stuffed suits in state and federal gov't that have made life long careers out of public service and the gov't was never intented to be an industry that propagates itself.

There are far too many crooks in office to even attempt to figure out who is a lesser crook than someone else. There are too many politicians that spend the majority of their terms working on the re-elections of themselves and others. A couple of elections with incumbants being bounced out on their asses would be the first wave. Far too many priviledges being doled out - lets stop those next. Why do politicians get such a greased sled? They get killer salries, let them spend Sunday evening paying bills and balancing their checkbooks. Then reforming salaries and pensions will be the next. Pensions should be earned, not a birthright.

But voting is the place to start. Its not reallistic to think everyone who can register to vote will, no more than its realistic to think voters will put down the remote and actually spend some time reading up on issues. The quickest way to change the face of Washington is to change the faces in Washington.