reducing the number of uninsured

According to "State of the States," a 2009 publication by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million in 2008 â€" or 15.4 percent of the population. Even working adults - 26.9 million of them - are increasingly uninsured.

As a result, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance is dropping while the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance rates also continues a long-term decline.

I had hoped that would change. So if you take the number that has lost insurance and divided that by the cost so far, how much did it cost to lose each person?

single payer is the only way.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner

Yes if they will not volunteer to get health insurance on their own after you spend billions on them. Force it on them. After all it's for their own good.

Definition
"Useful idiot" see BruceBanner

Yes if they will not volunteer to get health insurance on their own after you spend billions on them. Force it on them. After all it's for their own good.
#4 | Posted by paneocon

......same as car insurance.....

......same as car insurance.....

Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-25 10:14 AM | Reply

Except completely different, and both should be voluntary.

Except completely different, and both should be voluntary.
#6 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

.......human nature being what it is.....there is great wisdom in having both car & health insurance on a mandatory coverage basis.....

..human nature being what it is.....there is great wisdom in having both car & health insurance on a mandatory coverage basis.....

#7 | POSTED BY SKIZZIKS AT 2012-01-25 10:26 AM | REPLY

What if I don't drive?

What if I don't drive?
#8 | Posted by glasshouse

......then car insurance is not mandatory......

....same as once you stop breathing, health insurance premiums are no longer compulsory .......

"What if I don't drive?"

Skizz wants the govt give you a car and force you to drive. Or pay a fine...

....same as once you stop breathing, health insurance premiums are no longer compulsory .......

Liability insurance from dying? Good one Skizz. No wonder you praise Obamacare. LMAO...

Skizz wants the govt give you a car and force you to drive.
#10 | Posted by crispee_oc

.....no......I don't think I want Glasshouse behind the wheel of a vehicle (unless it's his pedal-car).....

single payer is the only way.
#3 | Posted by BruceBanner

There is no problem government can't cause and make worse.

single payer is the only way.

#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2012-01-25 12:34 AM

Wants the government to take care of him because his is such a failure he is unable to take care of himself.

There is no problem government can't cause and make worse.
#13 | Posted by Ray

......do all your ideas fit on a bumper sticker.?......

Wants the government to take care of him because his is such a failure he is unable to take care of himself.
#14 | Posted by glasshouse

...the insurance companies having been ripping off Americans for a long time....

......having a single payer system--or a government regulated system, only makes sense......

single payer is the only way.

Works great in North Korea.
Worked better in the Soviet Union.
Works fantastic in Cuba (just check with Michael Moore).
And It's impact is being felt far and wide in Europe too.

Just a roaring success everywhere you look. It's the only way.

Wants the government to take care of him because his is such a failure he is unable to take care of himself.

I say let the government take care of him.
And then defund it.

Gee, I guess we aren't supposed to be smart enough to connect the loss of millions of jobs with the increase in uninsured. Duh. Stupid thread.

"Gee, I guess we aren't supposed to be smart enough to connect the loss of millions of jobs with the increase in uninsured. Duh. Stupid thread."

Smart thread, stupid posters in your we category danni...

Just a roaring success everywhere you look. It's the only way.
#17 | Posted by dr_dude2

......I've lived in Europe for 8 years and Canada also.....

.....single payer is a success, much better than what we have here....

.....on average they pay one third to half as much, for much better outcomes......don't knock it till you've lived it.......

.......you have no idea how badly the insurance companies are ripping us off.......

"It's impact is being felt far and wide in Europe too. Just a roaring success everywhere you look."

Well, it certainly is in Europe, where they spend a lower % of GDP on health, with better measurable results.

Always a scream when some idiot brings up an example of better efficiency and then bashes it out of ignorance.

"What if I don't drive?"

Similarly, what if you don't breathe?

......do all your ideas fit on a bumper sticker.?......
#15 | Posted by skizziks

They have to when I'm dealing with liberals.

#16 | Posted by skizziks

The proof that insurance companies are ripping people off?

FACT CHECK: Health Insurers' Profits Not So Fat

WASHINGTON -- In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

.......you have no idea how badly the insurance companies are ripping us off.......
#21 | Posted by skizziks

They pay good money to have the laws made that way.

Give Bam-Bam a break, Paneocon. The scam has not even started. The knife to the gut starts 2014. We will then have to either sign on to the socialism or pay a fine every year. Remember when we had liberty?

"What if I don't drive?"

Similarly, what if you don't breathe?
Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-25 11:18 AM

Call it Michael Jackson liability insurance....

"Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year,"

Ah, that trick: take one piece of the puzzle and explain the whole picture.

Any word on increased bonuses, higher executive pay, or other moves which would have lowered their profits?

Doesn't Europre have some sort of debt crisis going on?

Europe? Urape? Whatever.

"Doesn't Europre have some sort of debt crisis going on?"

Yeah, but it's not based on health costs; it's based on (hope you're sitting down) bank malfeasance.

Gee, I guess we aren't supposed to be smart enough to connect the loss of millions of jobs with the increase in uninsured. Duh. Stupid thread.

#19 | Posted by danni

What are you talking about? The One said he added 3M last night. Of course I laughed my ass off at that BIG number.

Just a roaring success everywhere you look. It's the only way.
#17 | Posted by dr_dude2

# 1 Monaco: 89.73 years 2011 Time series
# 2 Macau: 84.41 years 2011 Time series
# 3 San Marino: 83.01 years 2011 Time series
# 4 Andorra: 82.43 years 2011 Time series
# 5 Japan: 82.25 years 2011 Time series
# 6 Guernsey: 82.16 years 2011 Time series
# 7 Singapore: 82.14 years 2011 Time series
# 8 Hong Kong: 82.04 years 2011 Time series
# 9 Australia: 81.81 years 2011 Time series
# 10 Italy: 81.77 years 2011 Time series
= 11 Jersey: 81.38 years 2011 Time series
= 11 Canada: 81.38 years 2011 Time series
# 13 France: 81.19 years 2011 Time series
# 14 Spain: 81.17 years 2011 Time series
= 15 Switzerland: 81.07 years 2011 Time series
= 15 Sweden: 81.07 years 2011 Time series
# 17 Israel: 80.96 years 2011 Time series
# 18 Iceland: 80.9 years 2011 Time series
# 19 Anguilla: 80.87 years 2011 Time series
# 20 Bermuda: 80.71 years 2011 Time series
# 21 Cayman Islands: 80.68 years 2011 Time series
# 22 Man, Isle of: 80.64 years 2011 Time series
# 23 New Zealand: 80.59 years 2011 Time series
# 24 Liechtenstein: 80.31 years 2011 Time series
# 25 Norway: 80.2 years 2011 Time series
# 26 Ireland: 80.19 years 2011 Time series
# 27 Germany: 80.07 years 2011 Time series
= 28 United Kingdom: 80.05 years 2011 Time series
= 28 Jordan: 80.05 years 2011 Time series
# 30 Greece: 79.92 years 2011 Time series
# 31 Saint Pierre and Miquelon: 79.87 years 2011 Time series
# 32 Austria: 79.78 years 2011 Time series
= 33 Malta: 79.72 years 2011 Time series
= 33 Faroe Islands: 79.72 years 2011 Time series
# 35 Netherlands: 79.68 years 2011 Time series
# 36 Luxembourg: 79.61 years 2011 Time series
# 37 Belgium: 79.51 years 2011 Time series
# 38 Virgin Islands: 79.33 years 2011 Time series
# 39 Finland: 79.27 years 2011 Time series
# 40 Martinique: 79.18 years 2006 Time series
# 41 Turks and Caicos Islands: 79.11 years 2011 Time series
# 42 Korea, South: 79.05 years 2011 Time series
# 43 Wallis and Futuna: 78.98 years 2011 Time series
# 44 Puerto Rico: 78.92 years 2011 Time series
# 45 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 78.81 years 2011 Time series
# 46 Gibraltar: 78.68 years 2011 Time series
# 47 Denmark: 78.63 years 2011 Time series
# 48 Portugal: 78.54 years 2011 Time series
# 49 United States: 78.37 years 2011

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year
#25 | Posted by paneocon

......do you trust those numbers ?.......

.....we pay two to three times as much for healthcare as Canada & Europe, and we get less coverage, and worse outcomes......

.......if an insurance exec is paid millions, that will not reflect in the profits, likewise, there hundreds of other dodges, well known to accountants, to show small profits......

......for me....the two key numbers are the amount of money going in....and the outcomes coming out......

Gee, I guess we aren't supposed to be smart enough to connect the loss of millions of jobs with the increase in uninsured. Duh. Stupid thread.
#19 | Posted by danni

Gee, I guess we aren't supposed to be smart enough to connect the loss of millions of jobs with the passing of ObamaCare. Duh.

......do you trust those numbers ?.......#35 | Posted by skizziks

Yes because profit is not based on costs alone. It is revenue less expenses.

.....we pay two to three times as much for healthcare as Canada & Europe, and we get less coverage, and worse outcomes......#35 | Posted by skizziks

2 times? Got a link on that? Do we pay more? yes send a couple million lawyers to Europe and see how it effects their expenses. The united states has a level of medical services second to none and that cost $$$. the list goes on.

......for me....the two key numbers are the amount of money going in....and the outcomes coming out......#35 | Posted by skizziks

American medical outcomes are so bad people come from all over the world for care here.

I had hoped that would change.

It will change when the Affordable Care Act is fully enacted. The bill takes effect gradually. States haven't set up insurance exchanges yet to make insurance available to more people. Some states like Florida are intentionally refusing to start working on this.

American medical outcomes are so bad people come from all over the world for care here.

If they're rich.

"American medical outcomes are so bad people come from all over the world for care here."

America's high end is the highest in the world, no doubt. But America's average care, especially when compared to the cost valuations worldwide, is waaaay overpriced and returns sub-par results.

...the insurance companies having been ripping off Americans for a long time....

......having a single payer system--or a government regulated system, only makes sense......

#16 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-25 11:08 AM | Reply

because lawyers and politicians are the only honest people amoung us, right skidmarks

single payer is the only way.
#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2012-01-25 12:34 AM
Wants the government to take care of him because his is such a failure he is unable to take care of himself.
#14 | POSTED BY GLASSHOUSE AT 2012-01-25 11:04 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

But I pay with my taxes, or with a fee. How is this free?

Definition
"Useful idiot" see BruceBanner

#4 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-01-25 08:26 AM | REPLY | FLAG: Useless idiot.

......I've lived in Europe for 8 years and Canada also.....
.....single payer is a success, much better than what we have here....

I've lived in Europe too.
You're full of shit.

#34 -

Monaco, here I come!
By the way, this is a description of the Monaco system -
Most citizens take out additional private insurance to cover the services and fees not paid for by the state system. This complementary medical insurance is called a mutuelle. The amount you pay into the mutuelle depends on the coverage you require, and is sometimes provided by your employer as a work related benefit.

It isn't single payer.
"Facts are stupid things."
~Ronald Reagan

Given the plan doesn't kick in until 2014 in full, this seems like a bit of a horse before cart situation IMHO, and I opposed Obamacare.

...the insurance companies having been ripping off Americans for a long time....

#45 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-25 01:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

So you admit here that you're as ignorant about other ways to deliver health care as you are certain of faking a medical degree.

Single payer systems pay for basic and necessary care. Anything you want over that, you pay for yourself. This is the way in Monaco and in Canada. There are more details as well, but I won't bore you with the facts.

Single payer systems pay for basic and necessary care. Anything you want over that, you pay for yourself. This is the way in Monaco and in Canada. There are more details as well, but I won't bore you with the facts.

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entityâ€"a government run organizationâ€"would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Or do you just continually juice up on 5 hour energy?

So you admit here that you're as ignorant about other ways to deliver health care as you are certain of faking a medical degree.

Come on hulkster. I am really disappointed in you.
I have a doctorate in racism.
You of all people should know that by now!

#34 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI

How much of that life expectancy differential is based on our quality of health care and how much on Americans being a bunch of fat asses? Not to worry though, because when Obamacare (should it survive) goes into full effect, you can expect at some point that you will be directed to report for annual physicals, where a government doctor of your choice will put a check mark next to "obese" or "high risk" or something similar. You will then be informed by mail (not delivered by the USPS) that your premium is going up because you're fat. Maybe they'll deliver a little wristband to you and tell you to wear it so they can track your activity level. That same band will let them know what you buy at the grocery store, or when you go to a fast food restaurant. Maybe you'll start paying an "unhealthy lifestyle" surcharge to pay down the fees the skinny people are unfairly having to shoulder. Obama will be heard saying "we should spread the fat around".

Christ, I should have written the sequel...call it Fahrenheit 452.

Yeah, I was intentionally a little crazy...or was I? Have you seen the Progressive Insurance Snapshot? How about the Nike Fuelband? How about Google? How long do you think it will take to meld those technologies so that Big Brother can monitor your every move? MUUHAHAHAHAHA (maniacal laughter)!!!!

#50 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-25 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit and pretends it's an argument

Infants haven't had time to ruin their health.
Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births.

1 Angola 175.90
2 Afghanistan 149.20
3 Niger 112.22
4 Mali 111.35
5 Somalia 105.56
........
174 Croatia 6.16
175 United States 6.06
176 Faroe Islands 6.06
177 Northern Mariana Islands 5.79
178 New Caledonia 5.71
179 European Union 5.61
180 Hungary 5.31
181 Taiwan 5.18
182 Greece 5.00
183 Canada 4.92
184 Cuba 4.90
185 New Zealand 4.78
186 San Marino 4.72
187 Wallis and Futuna 4.67
188 Portugal 4.66
189 United Kingdom 4.62
190 Australia 4.61
191 Netherlands 4.59
192 Luxembourg 4.44
193 Belgium 4.33
194 Isle of Man 4.32
195 Austria 4.32
196 Denmark 4.24
197 Slovenia 4.17
198 Korea, South 4.16
199 Liechtenstein 4.15
200 Israel 4.12
201 Switzerland 4.08
202 Jersey 3.98
203 Ireland 3.85
204 Andorra 3.80
205 Czech Republic 3.73
206 Malta 3.69
207 Guernsey 3.55
208 Germany 3.54
209 Norway 3.52
210 Anguilla 3.47
211 Finland 3.43
212 Spain 3.39
213 Italy 3.38
214 France 3.29
215 Iceland 3.20
216 Macau 3.18
217 Hong Kong 2.90
218 Japan 2.78
219 Sweden 2.74
220 Bermuda 2.47
221 Singapore 2.32
222 Monaco 1.79

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

If the feds can force us to purchase health insurance then they can force us to purchase anything.

As bad and unconstitutional as the individual mandate is, it is nothing compared with IPAB - which truly is a death panel as the intellectually-challenged Sarah Palin aptly named it.

We count premature infants as alive and include them in our statistics. Most, if not all, socialized medicine countries deem them not worth the time, effort and money to try and save, ergo consider them stillborn and throw them in the garbage.

Your statistic is flawed Zat.

We also count babies of parents that are born and kept alive in our NICU's but have fled Canada, UK, etc. in our statistics whether they live or die.

So, yeah, we look pretty shitty, but we save a lot of babies (many of whom go on to be a financial burden to their socialized medicine homelands).

If the feds can force us to purchase health insurance then they can force us to purchase anything.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-01-25 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You just wait until the try to force Zat to buy a car antenna instead of a boom stick. THEN he'll get mad.

;)

"If the feds can force us to purchase health insurance then they can force us to purchase anything."

Better tell that to the folks on Medicare.

Medicare is unconstitutional as well.

'Just because we violated the Constitution before means we can keep doing it on other initiatives' is a terrible argument.

......I've lived in Europe for 8 years and Canada also.....
.....single payer is a success, much better than what we have here....

I've lived in Europe too.
You're full of shit.
#44 | Posted by dr_dude2

.....all the time I was abroad, I never heard of anyone going bankrupt due to health care bills, when they were covered by insurance over there......

.....in the U.S., one and half million families go bankrupt a year strictly on account of health care bills, even though they had insurance.....

.......shit like that is only allowed to happen here.....because the insurance companies are allowed to get away with it.....

'Just because we violated the Constitution before means we can keep doing it on other initiatives' is a terrible argument.

But a central theme to how our government works. They call it "precedence."

Throwing stats up to see what sticks, eh?

.......shit like that is only allowed to happen here.....because the insurance companies are allowed to get away with it.....
#58 | Posted by skizziks

"Not allowed" is not accurate. They pay to get away with it. In this country, corporations control government. As long as fools keep voting Demopublican, that's the way it's going to stay until the system is bankrupt.

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or â€Å"payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entityâ€"a government run organizationâ€"would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Or do you just continually juice up on 5 hour energy?

#49 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-25 02:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You're a fucking moron. Try reality on for size. Copy-pasting some bullshit definition you found on the internet isn't an argument dipshit. Especially if it doesn't reflect reality.

#61 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2012-01-25 03:46 PM

A most definite Plutocracy.

You're a fucking moron. Try reality on for size. Copy-pasting some bullshit definition you found on the internet isn't an argument dipshit. Especially if it doesn't reflect reality.

.all the time I was abroad, I never heard of anyone going bankrupt due to health care bills, when they were covered by insurance over there...

No, instead, the whole fucking country goes bankrupt! Ever heard of Greece, or Italy, or Ireland, etc. etc. etc.

Besides, that's a different problem than delivering quality health care.
And I've never heard of anyone here who properly managed their healthcare going bankrupt either. All it takes is a catastrophic policy, which are dirt cheap.

No, instead, the whole fucking country goes bankrupt!

#65 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-25 04:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

What do you claim is happening in America? Your inconsistency is blinding.

And after all of that, the best healthcare system in the world, according to the earlier poster, Monaco, is where almost all of the citizenry has private health insurance.

But that's not all they have.
There is a baseline of coverage provided by the State.
Then there is additional coverage in the private market.
Why is a baseline of coverage provided by the State so terrifying to you right-wingers?

Posted by snoofy at 2012-01-25 05:42 PM | Reply

Why is plunder so comfortable for you?

'Just because we violated the Constitution before means we can keep doing it on other initiatives' is a terrible argument.

Objecting to health care on Constitutional grounds rather than health-related metrics is also a terrible argument.
In fact, you're not even talking about health care when you make that argument.
This is a typical tack taken by right-wingers. Don't talk about health care, make it about the Constitution instead.
Because they have no retort for the obvious efficacy of single payer systems in delivering better outcomes for less cost.

Why is plunder so comfortable for you?

It isn't.
The amount of "plunder" is lower under single payer systems.
And the outcomes are better.
Can you grok that?
Apparently not.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2012-01-25 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks the Government has a lower overhead that private company.

Thinks the Government has a lower overhead that private company.

Dude. You're totally missing it.

I think single payer incurs significantly less overhead than the several thousand private companites currently engaged in provisiong health care.

Let's find out if you think that way too.
How many CEOs does a single payer system need?
How many CEOs does a system in which several thousand private companies provision care need?

Let me know when you're prepared to acknowledge the existece of economies of scale.

How many insurance brokers are required in a single payer system?
How many insuarnce brokers are required in our patchwork system with thousands of separate insurers, providers, and hospitals?

I can do this all day, paneocon.

The Myth of Medicare's "Low Administrative Costs"

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law’s enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare’s administrative costs â€" the money it spends on expenses other than patient care â€" are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program;

Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks)

Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more.

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program’s administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.

-How many CEOs does a system in which several thousand private companies provision care need?

okay, first of all, we've already done the math on that overhead and it amounts to a meaningless amount of money saved per policyholder.

second, I have no doubts that other countries have achieved better results but I am skeptical we would ever truly replicate those systems.

remember, our political system is so full of payoffs and special interests that I have serious doubts about success WE (The USA) would be at replicating the same system.

If we could really do it then there is no reason why it wouldn't be successful.

But another point....we moved FURTHER away from single payer with Obamacare...not closer.

#73 | Posted by snoofy

You say Insurance Brokers, I say Government Bureaucrats

One works on commission and one is a public union highly paid piece of overhead.

You say Insurance Brokers, I say Government Bureaucrats

One works on commission and one is a public union highly paid piece of overhead.

The question was "how many?"
There would be zero brokers required in a single payer system, because there'd be no need to negotiate coverage.
I am a believer in the efficiency of the private sector, but I don't think they can compete with zero cost.

"There would be zero brokers required in a single payer system, because there'd be no need to negotiate price."

ft

The question was "how many?"
#77 | Posted by snoofy

Who cares it's called "commission"

commission - A fee or percentage allowed to a sales representative or an agent for services rendered.

Government Bureaucrats The question was "how many?"

#74 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-01-25 05:58 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Those services already exist. Adding them in as cost is misleading. If you want to play that game, then add them on to the private companies as well. Include all of the unneeded bureaucratic garbage that comes with the private companies - dozens of bills that come to the house, working 9-5, lack of complete coverage... etc... Time spent by customers to understand the convoluted system when they could be productive at work or spend time with their families.

This may be a lost cause trying to explain the concept of pay for work done to an government entitlement liberal.

-How many CEOs does a system in which several thousand private companies provision care need?

okay, first of all, we've already done the math on that overhead and it amounts to a meaningless amount of money saved per policyholder.

But you haven't done all the math.
All those private companies involved in paying for care, they need HR staff too, ironically to secure health coverage for their own workers. And they need IT departments. And independent auditors, and lawyers to oversee contract negotiations among the thousands of players in this game.

Do you think splitting that problem inso several thousand smaller pieces and having each entity come up with their own answer costs less than having one big entity do it? Do you think a lot of work is duplicated the way we do things?

Let's look at the bottom line. Do you think it's cheaper for companies to insure their workers the way we do it, or under single payer systems?

Our system is one in which the connections between entities grow at a geometric rate, which results in an increase in the provate sector bureaucratic overhead. Paneocon alluded to this earlier without realizing it. Our health care sector isn't very profitable, despite being a huge chunk of our GDP. That's because of how inefficiently it's provisioned and administered.

Most people look at %GDP, and our percentage is the highest by a pretty wide margin. That's not even taking into consideration that our raw GDP is also the highest.

This may be a lost cause trying to explain the concept of pay for work done to an government entitlement liberal.

I'm willing to pay for care.
A person shuffling paperwork between a hospital and an insurance company doesn't provide me with any care.
Hopefully you can understand the difference between productive work and make-work.

#80 | Posted by BruceBanner

The departments listed are used in the administration of Medicare. These costs are not used in figuring out the cost of Medicare over head. It would take the CBO to come out with the true administrative cost if they were properly tasked.

The private companies use a bottom line accounting on profit. Revenue in against expenses and benefits paid out. Note one other advantage the insurance companies have is income from investments.

Too bad obama did not just address fixing the uninsured problem instead of screwing around with the entire health care system in a govt power grab.

second, I have no doubts that other countries have achieved better results but I am skeptical we would ever truly replicate those systems.

Actually they don't

Our homicide and auto accident rates (neither of which have anything to do with quality of care) are much higher per capita which skews the life expectancy figures. Our infant mortality rates should be much better but in the US preemies are considered born babies and in the single payer countries they are considered stillborn or dead. Our cancer survival rates are much better (I am talking in the neighborhood of 20-30 percentage points better) as are our heart failure survival rates. Unfortunately our overweight and obesity rates are considerably higher which not only further skews the life expectancy numbers but also skews the medical costs as well.

Our litigation costs are higher than in single-pay systems, which skews the cost comparison further. In the end, our medical system IS more expensive than a single-pay system. But it provides vastly superior care and service. Most of the new innovations come from our system. Our waiting times when care is truly needed is vastly superior and the overall quality of our care (noted by a few points made above) is unmatched anywhere in the world. In this case, you get what you pay for.

Socialized medicine is fine, until you get sick. Then it sucks ass.

#82 | Posted by snoofy

Nice rant too bad all those things are included in the insurance companies P & L

Show me the Governments Medical Losss Ration for Medicare.

Note one other advantage the insurance companies have is income from investments.

You mean income from premiums collected and not spent on delivering care, but rather tied up in investments?

Our system is a for-profit system. Don't expect it to deliver healthy outcomes. Expect it to deliver profitable outcomes. Agree?

#83 | Posted by snoofy

I'm willing to pay for care.

The people in government who administers my insurance payment doesn't provide me with any care.

A person shuffling paperwork between a hospital and the government doesn't provide me with any care.

The people in government who checks for fraud and proper billing doesn't provide me with any care.

Hopefully you can understand the difference between productive work and government-work.

You mean income from premiums collected and not spent on delivering care, but rather tied up in investments? #88 | Posted by snoofy

Yes it's called the law. It ensures that the insurances companies can underwrite the policies. A broke insurance company is not much good.

"Too bad obama did not just address fixing the uninsured problem instead of screwing around with the entire health care system in a govt power grab."

Guess who subsidizes 40% of the folks with health insurance? You and me.

How? Well, about 40% of the insured are covered by the government, via either Medicare, Medicaid, the Bureau of Indian affairs, Veteran's Benefits, or they're government workers.

We all have a vested interest in keeping the total costs as low as possible, and other countries spend less of their national GDP on health, cover more people, and produce overall better results. One of the ways they do it is single payer.

Nice rant too bad all those things are included in the insurance companies P & L

Exactly. That's why our health care system is only able to earn a 2-3% profit, despite commanding 17% of our GDP. They have too much bureaucratic overhead.

If I gave you two and a half trillion dollars to invest, do you think you could beat a 2-3% rate of return? Heck, you could crush that with most dividend paying stocks.

17% uninsured?

How many of them make more than $50k/year - can afford it but choose not to?

How many qualify for state aid but refuse?

How many of them aren't even Americans?

When we look at all of those factors that percentage shrinks dramatically.

Our system is a for-profit system. Don't expect it to deliver healthy outcomes. Expect it to deliver profitable outcomes. Agree?
#88 | Posted by snoofy

It's called a free market. If the care is not good go else where. Try that with your single payer.

DID ANY BODY SEE THE WORD "CITIZEN" OR "LEGAL RESIDENT".... NOPE (In 2012)
No you did not and you won't, nor will you see the words ILLEGAL OR NONRESDENT.

Because that would badly skew the numbers as to how many people that really are getting health care who should not at the expense of everybody that is a CITIZEN.
In this case in would lower the number from 17%, to an unknown number.

What that number would be would depend on how many illegals were involved in the survey or the demographics they used for the base numbers of the population.

Any time any body tries to give you numbers on percentages of the population the first thing you must ask is are the illegals figured in to this number.

If its good for the Dem-o-rats they will be.
If its bad for the Dem-o-rats they will not be.

Yes..yes I know gallup just asks questions and tallies the answers.
That's why you/we need to ask the other questions.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

Also, how many of those had a short lapse in coverage (think job change) yet are counted as if they have no coverage at all?

and other countries spend less of their national GDP on health, cover more people, and produce overall better results.

The quality of their care when it is truly needed is attrocious.

The people in government who administers my insurance payment doesn't provide me with any care.
A person shuffling paperwork between a hospital and the government doesn't provide me with any care.
The people in government who checks for fraud and proper billing doesn't provide me with any care.
Hopefully you can understand the difference between productive work and government-work.

Right, so which system requires more people -- overhead -- that aren't involved in actually providing care?
The system with one payer, or the system with thousands upon thousands of payers, all having to hash out contracts and billing arrangements among themselves, negotiating among themselves, and with our thousands and thousands of employers who need care for their workers too?
Keep in mind both systems will at some point have to bear the costs of paying the people who deliver the actual care.
Which way do you think will cost less? The one with thousands of negotiations and lawyers?

"It's called a free market. If the care is not good go else where. Try that with your single payer."

They do, in places like France, where they spend a lower percentage of their GDP on health care, cover a larger percentage of their populace, and produce measurably better results.

Like I say PA, you argue with idiots they will bring you down to their level then beat you with their experience.

produce measurably better results.

No they don't!

One example:

Prostate cancer survival rate in the US = 91.9 in the US vs. 73.7 in France.

That is a measurably better result?

Are you nuts?

99 | Posted by Danforth

Except for this small problem

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget.

It's called a free market.

No it isn't. Not by a longshot.
The AMA cartel regulates the supply of med students, not the mythological "free market."
There are many, many other examples of why this isn't a free market.
Probably the most obvious is that, were it a free market, it woudln't cost so damn much, don't you think?
A free market should outperform a government system, yet our system costs nearly double.
A reasonalbe conclusion is that our system isn't free.
In fact, single payer comes closer to delivering the goals of the free market than what we've got.
In a single payer system, people know how much a procedure will cost.
Here, you won't really know until your insurance company processes your paperwork.
And, as I'm sure many of us have discovered, medical bills have a way of being larger than we were initially told.

Right, so which system requires more people -- overhead -- that aren't involved in actually providing care? #98 | Posted by snoofy

What you need is the old time family doctor. You can trade them a chicken for your treatment.

Still don't see why all these uninsured is a big problem.

Right, so which system requires more people -- overhead -- that aren't involved in actually providing care? #98 | Posted by snoofy

What you need is the old time family doctor. You can trade them a chicken for your treatment.

"The quality of their care when it is truly needed is attrocious."

Nonsense. You've heard a few horror stories. America's top-notch care is the best, no doubt, but there are many more places than Americans would like to admit where the cost is cheaper and the care is better, certainly the average care. And even the top-notch is getting whittled away: areas are springing up, especially in Asia, where the places are spotless and the procedures first-rate, just at drastically cut prices, to the point where health plans will begin to encourage medical tourism for an operation, since the procedure costs and the trip can be much cheaper there than the procedure here.

What you need is the old time family doctor. You can trade them a chicken for your treatment.

That was back before the AMA got the Mafia Curse and started caring more about how much doctors earn and not so much about delivering health care to Americans.

I'm really surprised there isn't more venom for the AMA from you right-wingers. They're practically a union, you know. And they collude with med schools to constrain supply, so their members can demand higher wages.

Yet I've never heard one right-winger say we should abolish the AMA and rethink how we create doctors as a way to reduce our health care costs. I wonder why that is?

It's a know fact...if you want free health care go to any hospital and say "No Habla"....and your good!

No wonder hispanics come in highest w/o insurance.

Yet I've never heard one right-winger say we should abolish the AMA and rethink how we create doctors as a way to reduce our health care costs. I wonder why that is?

#109 | Posted by snoofy

Well, it's not up to me to say we should abolish the AMA. They're a group of people who can organize if they want.

But you're right on the second point, and I have said so. We could have much of the work doctors are overpaid to do, done by nurses and nurse practitioners instead. In fact, that's already happening in many places, and this trend will accelerate in coming years. LPN's will do the work of RN's, and technicians will be doing the work of LPN's. No other way the system is going to work otherwise.

Yet I've never heard one right-winger say we should abolish the AMA and rethink how we create doctors as a way to reduce our health care costs. I wonder why that is? #109 | Posted by snoofy

Because we don't care. We don't have to have out mitts on every person, company, and organization. Let them do what they want. Considering how many doctors have left them I would guess they are doing something wrong, like sucking up to Barry Care? It's that old free market thing.

The AMA cartel regulates the supply of med students, not the mythological "free market."

That is true.

They also successfully lobbied for all sorts of liscencing legislation that denies lesser educated providers from performing things they are easily capable of.

You've heard a few horror stories.

I am citing statistics, like waiting times for things like hip replacement, etc.

The waiting times are far longer in these single pay systems and THAT is a measurable result that pertains exclusively to quality of care.

An HSA model what reduce costs dramatically, but that wouldn't involve government control, so the left would never even consider it (that wasn't directed at you personally).

#109 | Posted by snoofy

That's because most rightwingers are sadly ignorant as to how the AMA operates.

The practice of comparing Europe to the United States for the purpose of justifying one side or the other's assumption that our health care would be better or worse if we more like Europe is absurd. We are the United States and we are not like any other country. We do things bigger, bigger population, bigger land mass, more diversified demographics, more income stratification, more crime, and more fraud.

We know what we have with the current system. It's not perfect but with open enrollment across state lines, tort reform, loser pay court costs, health savings accounts and tax incentives it can be tweaked and the risks to our treasury are minimal.

So we do Barry Care and we force single payer by driving the insurance companies out of the system with MLR and regulation. In a couple of years the whole thing takes a shit and when it does that is does it in an American size shit. Huge deficits for as far as the eye can see. What then, who do I see about that? You snoofy, you JeffJ? Can we come over to your house and beat the dog crap out of you? No, there will be no one to see, no one to blame that will fix it, just liberal shuffling off into retirement and writing their memoires.

Why are people so wedded to health insurance companies? They take 20 to 40% of the health care dollars for processing paperwork. They serve NO PURPOSE!

No health care of any kind for Illegals.

Well OK , quarantine , immediate life saving care (Then deportation if crime related), inoculations.

If you stop handing out tickets to Disneyland they will stop coming.

Also the cost of deportation or any medical care given should be taken out of any Foreign Aide given to the Country of the illegal.
That way Major Craft and General Corruption will take care of the Illegal problem on their side of the border as each illegal is money out of their pockets.

....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

Once again we have to discuss our health care problems and we blame insurance companies for our problems instead of our health.

We are the fattest people in the history of humanity (the USA).

If we don't start adressing our lifestyles, anything else we do is not likely to really achieve success.

#117

You mean like obama? He "wedded" us more to the insurance companies than anybody in the GOP

I'm willing to pay for care.

The people in government who administers my insurance payment doesn't provide me with any care.

A person shuffling paperwork between a hospital and the government doesn't provide me with any care.

The people in government who checks for fraud and proper billing doesn't provide me with any care.

Hopefully you can understand the difference between productive work and government-work.

#89 | Posted by paneocon

you think the health insurance companies provide you with care? that is sad

Why are people so wedded to health insurance companies? They take 20 to 40% of the health care dollars for processing paperwork. They serve NO PURPOSE! #117 | Posted by truthhurts

And you think that Government bureaucrats with big public union pensions and benefits are more cost effective?

"It's called a free market. If the care is not good go else where. Try that with your single payer."

They do, in places like France, where they spend a lower percentage of their GDP on health care, cover a larger percentage of their populace, and produce measurably better results.

#99 | Posted by Danforth

hahahaha free market HAHAHAH

my mid sized company 250 employees has a total of 2 options when it comes to Health insurance shitty service vs high cost

#120 | Posted by eberly

Maybe but the Republicans and Bush were sucking some serious big pharma dick in Medicare part D

you think the health insurance companies provide you with care? that is sad #121 | Posted by truthhurts

Yes I do, but what is really sad is when you think a government studge gives a shit about your health. Does the guy at the DMV give a shit if your running late?

Once again we have to discuss our health care problems and we blame insurance companies for our problems instead of our health.

We are the fattest people in the history of humanity (the USA).

If we don't start adressing our lifestyles, anything else we do is not likely to really achieve success.

#119 | Posted by eberly

but god forbid if schools had slightly healthier lunches, then it is impinging on freedumbs

Yes I do, but what is really sad is when you think a government studge gives a shit about your health. Does the guy at the DMV give a shit if your running late?
#125 | Posted by paneocon

At least you can spell "shit."

#117

You mean like obama? He "wedded" us more to the insurance companies than anybody in the GOP

#120 | Posted by eberly

agreed, that is one reason why i am questioning whether I will vote for hiim

my mid sized company 250 employees has a total of 2 options when it comes to Health insurance shitty service vs high cost

#123 | Posted by truthhurts

I'll take #3--none of the above. I think I'm going to self-insure. My policy is month-to-month, it's a high-ded, but thinking about just writing a check if I get sick.

And you think that Government bureaucrats with big public union pensions and benefits are more cost effective?

#122 | Posted by paneocon

yes

taking health insurance out of the equation will free up ALOT of money, taking health insurance out of the employer employee relationship will save employers money, getting rid of the confusion over billing will make the recipient's life alot easier.

Yes I do, but what is really sad is when you think a government studge gives a shit about your health. Does the guy at the DMV give a shit if your running late?

#125 | Posted by paneocon

you think a health insurance employee cares about your health? that is even sadder

Imagine how much more money you could free up by taking government out of the equation.

I'll take #3--none of the above. I think I'm going to self-insure. My policy is month-to-month, it's a high-ded, but thinking about just writing a check if I get sick.

#129 | Posted by rightisright
thats a no go for my company we got burnt 10 years ago and wont even consider it.

Imagine how much more money you could free up by taking government out of the equation.

#132 | Posted by rightisright

hahahahaha, yeah we wouldnt pay more but get alot less.

130 | Posted by truthhurts

And how will you feel when someone thinks your company is inefficient and disposable and that the government could do it better. Assuming you really have a company that big.

sorry if I gave the wrong impression it is not MY company, the company I work for and like the buggy whip workers I will find a new job.

#136 | Posted by truthhurts

So if you're not happy with your job and you will look for a job somewhere else but you want to take my right to choose my health care provider from me on the open market. Nice to know.

#136 | Posted by truthhurts

So if you're not happy with your job and you will look for a job somewhere else but you want to take my right to choose my health care provider from me on the open market. Nice to know.

#137 | Posted by paneocon

sometimes the adults have to do what is best for the rest of you

:O)

but you want to take my right to choose my health care provider from me on the open market.

I don't want to take your right to some "market" away from you. This isn't about markets. This is about health.
We need a baseline level of care that's available to everybody, all the time.
You shouldn't have to worry about not having it when you lose your job.
Health care should just work regardless of circumstance.
Outages and missed opportunities can be costly.

So if you're not happy with your job and you will look for a job somewhere else but you want to take my right to choose my health care provider from me on the open market. Nice to know.
#137 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-01-25 08:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This is not valid. Single payer system does not provide your healthcare, it simply manages payment and negotiates rates. you can go to anyone who practices medicine in the country.

We all have a vested interest in keeping the total costs as low as possible, and other countries spend less of their national GDP on health, cover more people, and produce overall better results. One of the ways they do it is single payer.

#91 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-01-25 06:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG: YES BUT>>>

Remember that every country that has socialized medicine has higher taxes and yes in the near future we will have higher taxes (we who are of the 53%) an if you believe the level of care (wait times, availability of newest developed meds, etc) will remain the same as you receive now you are dreaming.

"we who are of the 53%"

Why do you perpetuate that bullshit? Why do you pretend income taxes are the sum total of government revenue, when they're only about a third, and why do you pretend an income tax dollar is somehow more important than an OTR trucker's gasoline tax dollar?

"Remember that every country that has socialized medicine has higher taxes"

Great point. You're absolutely right. But the additional taxes don't add up to what we pay in taxes + what we pay in health care.

Here, we pay extra and cover less, with worse overall outcomes. Still think our way is better?

Here, we pay extra and cover less, with worse overall outcomes. Still think our way is better?

#142 | Posted by Danforth

Stop peddling a lie that is so demonstrably false.

The overall quality of our healthcare is unmatched in the world and is easily provable on a measurable level.

Always fun to drop by and see jeffj lying again.
[citation seriously fucking needed]

And It's impact is being felt far and wide in Europe too.
Just a roaring success everywhere you look. It's the only way.
#17 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2

Yes, we Germans like our health care system. The insurance is mandatory, but you are allowed to choose the insurer if your income level is sufficient. Nobody here would switch to the American system. Thank you very much.

Yes, we Germans like our health care system. The insurance is mandatory, but you are allowed to choose the insurer if your income level is sufficient. Nobody here would switch to the American system. Thank you very much.

#145 | Posted by fribo at 2012-01-26 07:30 AM | Reply

Mandatory.

With statists it is all about coersion.

I am glad you are happy with your healthcare system.

You'll be pining for our system, as it still exists (the next 2 years will chart our future course) if/when you actually get sick or have an extremely painful injury that requires major surgery - your wait times for such things suck ass.

Zat,

What am I lying about?

If I am factually inaccurate please provide some proof.

I will gladly recant if my knowledge of the facts is wrong.

I am dead serious.

[citation seriously fucking needed]

#144 | Posted by Zatoichi

Fair point.

My blogging time ain't what it used to be and as such I don't always have time to source my quotes - now is one of those times.

If you don't believe me you can check it for yourself via google or you can read the book Don't Vote. That is my source for the claims on this thread and the numbers I quote are sourced within the book.

"You'll be pining for our system, as it still exists (the next 2 years will chart our future course) if/when you actually get sick or have an extremely painful injury that requires major surgery - your wait times for such things suck ass."

Because those damn surgeons will be wasting their time operating on fucking poor people. How dare they inconvenience those who have money.And hey, let's make it harder to get financial aid for school so we won't graduate more doctors and nurses.

"Mandatory. With statists it is all about coersion."

Damn people who actually know what they are talking about instead of talking point repeaters blindly repeating the right wing talking points.

#150 | Posted by danni

Single-pay is forced participation - coersion.

You can make all sorts of sound arguments as to why it's a good thing, but my point is 100% factual.

DANFORTH: "we who are of the 53%"
Why do you perpetuate that bullshit? Why do you pretend income taxes are the sum total of government revenue, when they're only about a third, and why do you pretend an income tax dollar is somehow more important than an OTR trucker's gasoline tax dollar? "

Yes there are other taxes but, WE THE 53% pay those also PLUS Federal Income Tax.

Single-pay is forced participation - coersion.

It's not "coercion" to have the full spectrum of medical care available at all times.

It's freedom.

The overall quality of our healthcare is unmatched in the world and is easily provable on a measurable level.

When your insurance company decides they want to pay for it, sure.
But when you've got a pre-existing condition, not so much.
And if you've got no insurance, you're better off in Cuba.

Quality of care is not the issue.
Access to care is the problem with our system.
And, cost of care is another problem with our system.
Coordination of care is a self-imposed problem in our multiple payer system.
Our comparably low scores on quality are reflections of these problems.

"Yes there are other taxes but, WE THE 53% pay those also PLUS Federal Income Tax."

And the OTR guy pays more gasoline tax than you, and more excise taxes on tires.

Again, you're talking about 1/3rd of government's income as if it's the whole picture; it's not even close.

"Stop peddling a lie that is so demonstrably false. The overall quality of our healthcare is unmatched in the world and is easily provable on a measurable level."

You're full of shit, and everyone who knows anything about the industry knows it. You're referring to our top-tier care, and not, as you claim, "overall quality".

They actually all have insurance. It's called taxpayers and bankruptcy. They get sick, rack up a huge medical bill, declare bankruptcy, and you and I pay their tab through higher costs.

Snoopy,

Freedom?

What if I don't like the government's plan?

Am I free to choose another?

Participation is mandatory. That is,not freedomWhat if I don't want to be taxed for government care?

Am I free to opt out?

Participation is coeerced. That is the antithesis of freedom.

Danforth,

Are you suggesting that a patient gets a better well exam in Canada than here?

That a Canadian doctor sets a broken bone better?

We know what we have with the current system. It's not perfect but with open enrollment across state lines, tort reform, loser pay court costs, health savings accounts and tax incentives it can be tweaked and the risks to our treasury are minimal.

So we do Barry Care and we force single payer by driving the insurance companies out of the system with MLR and regulation. In a couple of years the whole thing takes a shit and when it does that is does it in an American size shit. Huge deficits for as far as the eye can see. What then, who do I see about that? You snoofy, you JeffJ? Can we come over to your house and beat the dog crap out of you? No, there will be no one to see, no one to blame that will fix it, just liberal shuffling off into retirement and writing their memoires.

#116 | Posted by paneocon

I couldn't help but notice that no one answered my question. Who do I see when your socialist utopia health care for everyone program goes tit's up?

"We are the fattest people in the history of humanity (the USA).
#119 | Posted by eberly"

Those fat fuckers aren't fat - they're Rubenesque.

Thankfully, we also have a lot of smokers like Goatshart and sMurphy - their short life spans help the equation.

Definition
"Useful idiot" see BruceBanner

#4 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

"Sack of Shit" see paneocon

America is better off without you. My guess is you suck down way more in benefits from Medicare than you ever contributed and will be one of those require/request life support at age 90.

Give Bam-Bam a break, Paneocon. The scam has not even started. The knife to the gut starts 2014. We will then have to either sign on to the socialism or pay a fine every year. Remember when we had liberty?

#27 | POSTED BY DIABLO

You never had "liberty" stfu and quit whining.

I've lived in Europe too.
You're full of shit.

#44 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2

details you lying sack of shit.

JeffJ,
Freedom?
What if I don't like the government's war in Iraq?
Am I free to not pay for it?
Participation in taxation is mandatory. That is,not freedomWhat if I don't want to be taxed for government war?
Am I free to opt out?
Participation is coeerced. That is the antithesis of freedom.

Or, maybe you're overstating things just a wee bit, JeffJ.

Go live in a Ted Kacynski shack in the woods if you don't want to live in civilization.
And if you renounce all your wealth, there will be nothing for the taxman to take.
That would be true freedom, by your standards.

Because they have no retort for the obvious efficacy of single payer systems in delivering better outcomes for less cost.

#69 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That is because so many wingers are owners of insurance companies and hospitals. Profiting on misery is the right wing way. If you try to discuss efficiency and value for the dollar expect the goal post to move, the definition to be redefined or a denigration of systems that perform better for less cost. Their whole argument boils down to greed over humanity and nothing will change that fact. The right doesn't give two shits about anything they cannot profit from, control or make conform to their so called norms. I say sterilize, euthanize and ostracize their genetic material.

It's not perfect but with open enrollment across state lines
What about states rights, paneocon?
Futhermore, if this is such a valid money-saving idea, why haven't we seen enrollment across state lines with other types of insurance?

tort reform
Some states have this. Have their health costs come down? To get a scale of how much "tort reform" might accomplish, look at how much of our total medical cost is due to torts. It's about 1%. Unless you plan on completely eliminating malpractice lawsuits, that number won't get much lower than 1% even with "tort reform."

loser pay court costs
What is the goal achieved here? To put Merck out of business for their Vioxx cover-up? Or, when coupled with tort reform, would those Vioxx lawsuits have been decided in favor of Merck? They only killed 50,000 people.

health savings accounts
We already have health savings accounts.

tax incentives
Sooo... you are advocating government intrustion in the market? Tax incentives, that means handouts in your lexicon. That's your fix?

Face it, single payer achieves all of your goals.
Plus the added bonus of reduced bureacracy, less paperwork, uniformity of health records, and greater continuity of care.

Just admit that you object to single payer purely on ideological grounds, and you're not looking at healthy outcomes or costs in this discussion.

America is better off without you. My guess is you suck down way more in benefits from Medicare than you ever contributed and will be one of those require/request life support at age 90. #162 | Posted by Legio

You would be wrong but that is nothing new for you. I pay my bills and don't use government largesse unlike entitlement addicted weasels like you.

tort reform
Some states have this. Have their health costs come down? To get a scale of how much "tort reform" might accomplish, look at how much of our total medical cost is due to torts. It's about 1%. Unless you plan on completely eliminating malpractice lawsuits, that number won't get much lower than 1% even with "tort reform."
#167 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Actually, Tort Reform will increase medical costs. Tort Reform will streamline the process for bringing torts against medical providers. Currently most cases, 99%, never see the light of day because of costs. Tort Reform would make it far easier to sue on those cases, just like work comp, so total costs would actually skyrocket. Cost per cases is cut only moderately because most cases aren't excessive but the number of cases skyrockets.

Freedom?
What if I don't like the government's plan?
Am I free to choose another?
Participation is mandatory. That is,not freedomWhat if I don't want to be taxed for government care?
Am I free to opt out?
Participation is coeerced. That is the antithesis of freedom.

#158 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Freedom?
What if I don't want to drive on the right side of the road?
Am I free to choose the middle or left or the sidewalk?
Traffic laws are mandator. That is,not freedomWhat if I don't want to be driving under 100 mph due to speed limits?
Am I free to opt out?
Following traffic laws is coerced. This is the antithesis of freedom.

Potty training is coerced too.
I pity JeffJ's mommy.

What about states rights, paneocon? #167 | Posted by snoofy
Interstart commerice is regulated by the federal government

Futhermore, if this is such a valid money-saving idea, why haven't we seen enrollment across state lines with other types of insurance?#167 | Posted by snoofy

See life insurance, Auto Insurance, business insurance, ect.

tort reform
Some states have this. Have their health costs come down? #167 | Posted by snoofy

Texas hs seen significant results on their tort reform. Since I know you will dig up article from lawyers saying the saving are not there here you go.

Texas tort reform advocates dispute critical report

Since the reforms were enacted, 23,520 doctors have been licensed in Texas, and physician growth has outpaced population growth by 84%, according to the governor's office.

The cost of medical liability insurance has declined by nearly 30% since reforms were enacted, according to Perry's office.

#170 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-26 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

You've constructed a nice straw man there, but your analogy is just stupid.

It is more equivalent to the government forcing you to buy a car, telling you which 3 colors you can have, what the engine is, how many airbags, what size tires, how much it can weigh and finally, how much extra it is going to cost because they had to tell you all the options you wanted.

Then, if you told them you didn't want or need their car because you take the train, they tell you that you owe them money for not buying their car and if you don't pay they will drag your ass off to a rape cage.

Coercion, monopoly of force, aggression, and contempt for its subjects are the only tools of government.

Futhermore, if this is such a valid money-saving idea, why haven't we seen enrollment across state lines with other types of insurance?#167 | Posted by snoofy

See life insurance, Auto Insurance, business insurance, ect.

Huh?
As someone who recently purchased auto insurance, I can assure you the contract language is specific to the state in which I live.
Exactly what is it that you think you're advocating with this talking point "across state lines?"
Demonstrate to me where the savings come in.
Demonstrate to me where those savings translate into lower costs for me rather than increased profits for someone else.

The cost of medical liability insurance has declined by nearly 30%
Leading to how much of a decline in total health costs, exactly?

snoofy you still don't answer my question. Who do we see then Barry care is tit's up.
Same person we see when 10% annual medical inflation ratchets health care care costs to 25% of our GDP. Which is where we'll be by 2020.
Nobody is going to take away your doctors. This is about finding ways to make the insurance cost less.

About the only valid economic reason someone would oppose single payer is if they are a middleman in our system. At least Eberly has the guts to admit it.

The right doesn't give two shits about anything they cannot profit from, control or make conform to their so called norms. I say sterilize, euthanize and ostracize their genetic material.
#166 | Posted by Legio

And the left doesn't give two shits about anything they can't steal, loot and plunder.

Coercion, monopoly of force, aggression, and contempt for its subjects are the only tools of government.

Well if you are of the opinion we need government, then you're accepting of those things as a necessary evil.
And if you are of the opinion we do not need government, you should get to building your Ted Kacynski shack in the woods.
Either way, you're not adding anything to the conversation by pointing out that government has to govern.
But you sure do sound awful petulant about the reality of government. Do you need a hug?

And the left doesn't give two shits about anything they can't steal, loot and plunder.

Ray, those are just synonyms for "profit."

As someone who recently purchased auto insurance, I can assure you the contract language is specific to the state in which I live

not very much of it. The "no fault" or "med pay" or "UM/UIM" piece is most of it. Comprehensive, Collision, liability, property damage, etc....all those terms are defined the same. minimum limits can differ as well.

The P&C Industry uses very universal language, most of which is written by ISO.

How can so many be without health insurance? Bungholio passed laws about forcing us to pay for everyone's health insurance that can't or won't pay their own way.
A huge percentage of people are on either SSI or SSD or welfare and can waltz into any ER with a snotty nosed kid and demand service - all for FREE. So what seems to be the problem?

A huge percentage of people are on either SSI or SSD or welfare and can waltz into any ER with a snotty nosed kid and demand service - all for FREE. So what seems to be the problem?

The problem seems to be the high cost of waltzing into the ER and demanding service -- for FREE.

Roughly 3/4 of ER visits are not really responsive to emergent conditions.

So, an obvious fix is to give people a regular doctor's office where they can take their snotty nose kid. Where it will cost about 1/10th what it costs to be seen in the ER.

The other fix is to change the law so the ER can turn people away unless they have insurance or can demonstrate an ability to pay. Nobody has the stones for that. Which is precisely the point at which all your "free market" claptrap falls to the wayside.

My biggest concern is that we won't eliminate any and all special interests that will still impact how a single payer system will work.

Eberly,

I think this is a valid concern.

Because our system allows money to control politics, I can imagine the health care sector will not want to shrink from 1/6th our GDP to 1/10th.

But it has to happen somehow.

In 2003 forty thousand people in Europe died because it got hot outside. How many Americans know this? I bet not that many, but Liberals push Europe like it's a utopia.

I can't wait to get their model.

In 2003 forty thousand people in Europe died because it got hot outside.

Between 1999 and 2004, fifty thousand people in America died because they took Vioxx. How many Americans know this? I bet not that many, but Conservatives push tort reform like it's a panacea.

#34 | Posted by Zatoichi
Looks like Dr Dipshit is a liar.
-------------
There is book out on how to lie with statistics and Zatoichi just supplied an example.

Bloggers who live in a glass house should not throw stones.

#183 | Posted by snoofy

Between 1999 and 2004, fifty thousand people in America died because they took Vioxx. How many Americans know this? I bet not that many, but Conservatives push tort reform like it's a panacea.
---------------
A drug approved by the government for sale to the public killed that many people.

I'm shocked

And the left doesn't give two shits about anything they can't steal, loot and plunder.
Ray, those are just synonyms for "profit."
#177 | Posted by snoofy

The liberal mind works in Orwellian ways.

You would be wrong but that is nothing new for you. I pay my bills and don't use government largesse unlike entitlement addicted weasels like you.

#168 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

and you are a liar and blow dogs for quarters. I think medicare has your welfare check ready grandpa.

And the left doesn't give two shits about anything they can't steal, loot and plunder.

#175 | POSTED BY RAY

Your social security welfare check will be available to you on Feb 1 you fucking pathetic welfare queen. I bet you get WIC, EBT and medicare as well.

Your social security welfare check will be available to you on Feb 1 you fucking pathetic welfare queen. I bet you get WIC, EBT and medicare as well.
#188 | Posted by Legio

No other way to recover what was stolen from me. Of course, liberals see taxes as a way to live off of others. I'm amused by how pissed off you are when non-liberals use the system you forced on them.

Somebody doesn't even know what statistics ARE.
LOL
"Facts are stupid things."
~Ronald Reagan

No other way to recover what was stolen from me.

Sure there is. You just lack vision.
Get yourself into the 1% and the government will play reverse Robin Hood for you!

Sure there is. You just lack vision.
Get yourself into the 1% and the government will play reverse Robin Hood for you!
#191 | Posted by snoofy

I'm way ahead of you. When government devalues the dollar to nothing, I should be in the 1% or close to it.

Get yourself into the 1% and the government will play reverse Robin Hood for you!
#191 | Posted by snoofy

Do you libs ever notice you're voting for corporate lackeys? The bankers practically own Obama.

Do you libs ever notice you're voting for corporate lackeys? The bankers practically own Obama.

The bankers practically own the entire planetary economy, as a matter of fact.

The bankers practically own the entire planetary economy, as a matter of fact.
#194 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

So like a dumbass liberal, the corporate politicians throw you a bone once and a while so you keep voting for them.

So like a dumbass liberal, the corporate politicians throw you a bone once and a while so you keep voting for them.

What is your dumbass alternative, Ray?
Should I have voted for Nader or Perot?
I tried that. Not much changed.

Voting alone doesn't change much. People need to take to the streets.
The greatest hope for our democracy is all the immigrants from south of the border.
Those people know how to participate in democracy more than once every four years.
They haven't yet become fat, dumb, and happy, unlike us native-born Americans.

What is your dumbass alternative, Ray?

There is no alternative. This country was built on debt and it is collapsing on debt. It can't be stopped until it runs out of credit. The last time government lived within its means was about a hundred years ago. That should give you an idea about how far this collapse has to go.

I stopped voting twenty years ago. I pay taxes under threat of harm. Other than that, I don't recognize this government as a legitimate authority.

Voting alone doesn't change much. People need to take to the streets.

In Greece, they were all government dependents. That won't be me.

No other way to recover what was stolen from me. Of course, liberals see taxes as a way to live off of others. I'm amused by how pissed off you are when non-liberals use the system you forced on them.

#189 | POSTED BY RAY

I didn't do anything you worthless tool. It is funny how you equate a system created by your worthless generation as something I am responsible for. Must be nice to live in a drug induced coma.

I'm way ahead of you. When government devalues the dollar to nothing, I should be in the 1% or close to it.

#192 | POSTED BY RAY

you going to eat a Bacon, lettuce and Gold sandwich? That will be hoot to watch. Flash your yellow crap metal and that will be your last day on the planet in the Boaz post apocalyptic world.

In Greece, they were all government dependents. That won't be me.
#197 | POSTED BY RAY

send back your goddamn social security and refuse medical care under medicare otherwise stfu you parasitic loser.

send back your goddamn social security and refuse medical care under medicare otherwise stfu you parasitic loser.
#200 | POSTED BY LEGIO

You're so fucked up, it's funny. All that anger over gold.

"No other way to recover what was stolen from me."

Sure there is. You just lack vision.
Get yourself into the 1% and the government will play reverse Robin Hood for you!

#191 | Posted by snoofy

Ah-HA! It's the Government!!!

I knew it!

The Prime Minister of Newfundland came to the US for surgery, but every health care statistic that is posted by the left on this site has Canada ranked ahead of America. So is this Prime Minister stupid? No because the statistics posted are skewed by lifestyle and do not reflect on the actual health care. Look at studies on health care after people have been diagnosed with a problem and the US beats most countries, and especially Canada.

Nations with a healthy lifestyles are going to have better average health care numbers than the US, but it doesn't mean they have better health care.

Wealthy people from all over the world come to the US for health care, not the other way around.

Nations with a healthy lifestyles are going to have better average health care numbers than the US, but it doesn't mean they have better health care.

Health care is measured by outcomes. Better outcomes are though to be consistent with, among other things, better health care.
What I'm saying is, while there may be something to your premise, other nations achieve healthier outcomes than us.
Also, isn't America's obesity epidemic rightly considered a health care problem?
How else would you characterize it? A "food is too cheap" problem? A "our TV shows are too good and our couches too comfortable" problem?

The Prime Minister of Newfundland came to the US for surgery
We definitely have the best health care in the world, provided you can afford it. It's that "provided you can afford it" which leaves fifty million or so uninsured Americans in the lurch.

The problem isn't our care, it's access to care, and the reason there are problems accessing care is because our system operates on a profit model. If they had their way, they'd just collect premiums but never find any care to be medically necessary.

We need a system that's purposed to deliver care, not profits. As an example of why, there's really no way to deliver a hemophiliac's clotting factor at a cost of $250,000 a quarter and still earn a profit. That patient will always be a "medical loss."

Also, isn't America's obesity epidemic rightly considered a health care problem?

actually, it's the elephant in the room (no pun intended).

show me a country with poor health, but also with great healthcare.

it doesn't exist.

That is because you have to have health FIRST before you can really prove you have better healthcare.

As long as this country continues it's same obesity rate, we will never come to the conclusion that our healthcare is really better (even if it really is) because our results will never reveal it. Perhaps that is because it's difficult to acurately measure how good our healthcare is relative to other countries (in better health, BTW).

Eberly you are spot on.

One of the problems with metrics is you end up so intent on watching a gauge, you never look up to see you're flying directly towards a mountain.

The fact that people come here for care they can't get in their country tells us something is very good about our care.

The fact that Americans go elsewhere on "medical tourism" tells us something is very expensive about our care.

The fact that the #1 adult diagnosis in the ER is "Dental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" tells us many people aren't getting enough care in the first place, and in the appropriate venue.

We need a system that's purposed to deliver care, not profits. As an example of why, there's really no way to deliver a hemophiliac's clotting factor at a cost of $250,000 a quarter and still earn a profit. That patient will always be a "medical loss."

#204 | Posted by snoofy

OK, But why would we even think of doing that type of thing on a "just because you are sick and we have a way of making you better that will take an amount of money that could save a hundred people with other problems we should give it to you"....that's crazy.

Now if you can afford that level of care out of your own pocket that's fine, it will help researchers make the drug cheaper a little bit more each year till it can be handed out like aspirin to everybody.

Till then' your ass is going to die it sucks yea and I would not want a Doctor or insurance company to tell me I can not have something that will save my life because of money.

But you can't save every one, so you save the ones you can.

......NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....