PDA

View Full Version : Socialized health care question.


Hammer67
07-16-2009, 06:51 AM
Could someone please explain to me the basic "pros" of a universal, socialized, government run health care system over what we have now? I have the basic cons in place, but any unbiased analysis would be great.

There is too much bias out there on this topic.

For the record, I am against the Feds running anything like this on our tax dollars as that goes against the responsibilities of the Federal government.

Dino 6 Rings
07-16-2009, 09:31 AM
Go Visit a Local VA Hospital and ask the soldiers there receiving care how it is. That should answer all your questions on how a Government Run Medical Service Woks.

If that doesn't work for you, go to your local DMV and sit back and watch and see how a Government Run entity works.

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 09:45 AM
I think the upshot is that everyone will be covered.

steelreserve
07-16-2009, 09:51 AM
Pros: If you can't afford health coverage, you now get your medical expenses paid for free.

Cons: If you can afford health coverage, you now have to pay for your own medical expenses plus two or three other people's.

Dino 6 Rings
07-16-2009, 09:53 AM
I think the upshot is that everyone will be covered.

Everyone could be covered now if they would work hard and put money toward it on their own. You can buy private insurance if you want. Blue Cross Blue Shield, and others.

The problem is people don't do that and the system isn't designed correctly. Insurance should be just that, Insurance for a Huge Problem. I don't use my car insurance for an Oil Change or Tire Rotation. I pay for those out of pocket. But if someone runs a red light and slams into my car, My Insurance Kicks in and helps me pay for damages or buy a new car.

Medical Insurance should be set up the same way. I pay out of pocket for a Check Up, Physical, Blood work. Then when I need a Gall Bladder taken out, then the Insurance Kicks in to help.

That's my opinion anyway. 1009 pages of nonsense is what's going to be voted on and again, no one is reading the fcking bill. I did however see that a Senator or Congressman from Louisiana is pushing some legislation that says flat out, any Congressman or Senator that votes yes on this bill, must also Volunteer to give up their Private Insurance and go on the Public Insurance System they are voting to put in place.

Now that I'm a fan of. Put their money (our money really) where their mouth is.

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 09:57 AM
Preaching to the choir, Dino. In fact, I have pushed up the hard numbers on this board several times asserting that most people actually de-prioritize healthcare and CHOOSE not to pay for it. The number 45,000,000 is probably more like 5-7 million who don't actually already qualify for free healthcare.

fansince'76
07-16-2009, 10:01 AM
Pros: If you can't afford health coverage, you now get your medical expenses paid for free.

Cons: If you can afford health coverage, you now have to pay for your own medical expenses plus two or three other people's.

This.

MACH1
07-16-2009, 10:09 AM
Go Visit a Local VA Hospital and ask the soldiers there receiving care how it is. That should answer all your questions on how a Government Run Medical Service Woks.

If that doesn't work for you, go to your local DMV and sit back and watch and see how a Government Run entity works.

Bingo!

That and the USPS. Expect rate hikes every 6-8 months.

Godfather
07-16-2009, 10:15 AM
Everyone could be covered now if they would work hard and put money toward it on their own. You can buy private insurance if you want. Blue Cross Blue Shield, and others.

The problem is people don't do that and the system isn't designed correctly. Insurance should be just that, Insurance for a Huge Problem. I don't use my car insurance for an Oil Change or Tire Rotation. I pay for those out of pocket. But if someone runs a red light and slams into my car, My Insurance Kicks in and helps me pay for damages or buy a new car.

Medical Insurance should be set up the same way. I pay out of pocket for a Check Up, Physical, Blood work. Then when I need a Gall Bladder taken out, then the Insurance Kicks in to help.

That's my opinion anyway. 1009 pages of nonsense is what's going to be voted on and again, no one is reading the fcking bill. I did however see that a Senator or Congressman from Louisiana is pushing some legislation that says flat out, any Congressman or Senator that votes yes on this bill, must also Volunteer to give up their Private Insurance and go on the Public Insurance System they are voting to put in place.

Now that I'm a fan of. Put their money (our money really) where their mouth is.

One mistake you're making is assuming insurance means you'll be taken care of if you get sick. There are literally hundreds of horror stories of people who paid insurance for years, incurred a major expense, and the HMO said (falsely) that their treatment was elective or a pre-existing condition.

The Congressman you're thinking of is Paul Fleming of Shreveport. He's a doctor so he knows firsthand what the problems we have in the health care system. He just got elected last year so he still has common sense instead of thinking like a Beltway insider.

SteelersinCA
07-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Maybe we should supply auto insurance for everyone too. Oh wait, it's already required and people don't have it, oops.

steelreserve
07-16-2009, 10:29 AM
The problem is people don't do that and the system isn't designed correctly. Insurance should be just that, Insurance for a Huge Problem. I don't use my car insurance for an Oil Change or Tire Rotation. I pay for those out of pocket. But if someone runs a red light and slams into my car, My Insurance Kicks in and helps me pay for damages or buy a new car.

Medical Insurance should be set up the same way. I pay out of pocket for a Check Up, Physical, Blood work. Then when I need a Gall Bladder taken out, then the Insurance Kicks in to help.

Problem with that is, with health care, it's not $30 here and there for the minor maintenance. It's $400 here and $1,500 there for the little things, which is completely unmanageable. And not because it actually reflects the real cost of services; more like because the way health care is set up, the provider is free to charge whatever they want unless a big entity like insurance or the government comes in and puts a limit on it. Like, seriously, ever ask your doctor's office what they'd charge you if you were paying cash? Usually $300 and up for a routine checkup that lasts maybe 10 minutes.

When's the last time you were in a hospital and anyone you came in contact with could actually tell you anything about what the cost of your visit was going to be? It's more like they'll just tell you "a lot" and you're supposed to accept that and pay whatever arbitrary amount they come up with after the fact. It's gotten completely out of hand. That's why it costs too much.

Dino 6 Rings
07-16-2009, 10:33 AM
I agree, the cost is outrageous but just taxing people more to pay those high costs instead of fixing the system to lower costs doesn't make sense to me.

Dino 6 Rings
07-16-2009, 10:34 AM
Maybe we should supply auto insurance for everyone too. Oh wait, it's already required and people don't have it, oops.

You are required to have car insurance to own a car. You have the option of not owning a car or driving.

Now imagine if people without cars, which in big cities, there are plenty of, having to pay higher taxes for the people with cars to have insurance.

steelersfanman92
07-16-2009, 10:41 AM
One of my biggest issues with socialized health care is that it will put thousands of people out of work. Most of the out-patient surgery centers will shut down and almost all surgeries will be through the hospitals. In many cases the surgery centers are of higher quality and more specialized. Also elective surgery is going to be almost impossible to get.

fansince'76
07-16-2009, 10:46 AM
Maybe we should supply auto insurance for everyone too. Oh wait, it's already required and people don't have it, oops.

Yep, which is why I'm paying even more for "uninsured motorist" coverage. :mad:

steelreserve
07-16-2009, 10:51 AM
I agree, the cost is outrageous but just taxing people more to pay those high costs instead of fixing the system to lower costs doesn't make sense to me.

Well, yeah, duh. That's why OMGbama's plan is retarded.

What they NEED to do is come up with a way to put a cap on the costs so they're within reach of the average American, but without being so draconian that all the doctors leave and you end up with long lines and shitty treatment like in Britain or Canada.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt they'd screw that up good and proper. Or more accurately, the public would screw it up because we've been conditioned to run screaming to the lawyers at the first sign we won't get exactly what we want. Starting from the day after they announced a plan like this, official policy would then be dictated by half a million competing lawsuits from people screaming that it wasn't FAIR. Who knows what kind of mess we'd end up with once the courts spit it out.

So to avoid that, the only solution that the government can propose now (for a lot of problems, not just health care) is to increase spending and pay for it with higher taxes on the rich. Anything else will just get reversed or sued into something unrecognizable.

steelreserve
07-16-2009, 10:56 AM
One of my biggest issues with socialized health care is that it will put thousands of people out of work. Most of the out-patient surgery centers will shut down and almost all surgeries will be through the hospitals. In many cases the surgery centers are of higher quality and more specialized. Also elective surgery is going to be almost impossible to get.

I would think it'd be the other way around. Outpatient surgery centers actually help the problem of bringing down outrageous prices. They create competition, and what you get there is a lot, lot closer to an actual legitimate cost.

Need to have your gall bladder out? Go to a hospital, they'll try to charge you $60,000. Go to an outpatient surgery center for the exact same thing, and their fee is maybe $7,000 or $8,000. I would think that under any kind of system that tries to make health care affordable, they'd try to send as many people as possible to those kinds of places.

Godfather
07-16-2009, 11:05 AM
You are required to have car insurance to own a car. You have the option of not owning a car or driving.


You beat me to it. That's a big difference.

You have no alternative if Congress and that liar Obama get their way. They want us to be forced to buy a bad product from a private company. Imagine what will happen to premiums when people have no alternative.

Maybe we should force everyone to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle. Doesn't matter if you already have a car or if you're blind and can't use it or if you live in Manhattan and have no place to park it. You HAVE to buy one or pay a substantial fine because it's in the "public interest" to save those companies.

We should also force everyone to buy cable or satellite even if they don't watch TV. Having CNN or Fox or MSNBC will make the public better informed, right? Plus advertisers will be able to reach a wider audience.

And let's force everyone to buy a cell phone. That way we can set up a reverse 911 system that texts everyone with emergency information.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 11:16 AM
Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

(CNSNews.com) - There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.

“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”

“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.

“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.

“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”

“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51115

---------------------------------

Another 1000 page Bill that no one has read - there will be lots of surprises.

1984 / Animal Farm - take your pick - Big Brother will be watching

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 11:19 AM
“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”

Isn't that what they said to the "subject" of the Tuskegee Experiment?

Godfather
07-16-2009, 11:35 AM
“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”

Isn't that what they said to the "subject" of the Tuskegee Experiment?

Yep.

The Help Pay for Vioxx vaccine is scary. It's so bad CBS News blew the whistle on it. It's caused over thirty deaths and left hundreds of teenage girls disabled. All for a disease that can be easily preventable with behavior (ie paying attention to the quality and quantity of sex partners and getting regular checkups).

The chickenpox vaccine is dumb because it's a common childhood disease and the mortality rate is extremely low.

Hammer67
07-16-2009, 11:56 AM
I agree, the cost is outrageous but just taxing people more to pay those high costs instead of fixing the system to lower costs doesn't make sense to me.

This is exactly my point. I am all for reform. Costs are increasing more then the inflation rate. I get it. BUT, how will a government run plan change this???

The problem is they are trying to plug holes in the damn without looking into the causes of the holes. What is causing these increases?

Could it be TOO MUCH government intervention already? One thing about Obama's plan I DO LIKE is that he wants to eliminate the patent restriction on new meds so that generics can hit the market immediately. About time for that.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 11:57 AM
The Help Pay for Vioxx vaccine is scary.

The sterilization for white folks and forced abortions will be next.

Sotomayor will make sure of that.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 12:55 PM
There is too much bias out there on this topic..

The House Bill is over 1000 pages - nobody even knows what it all means yet.


Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

Godfather
07-16-2009, 01:00 PM
Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal

And if you're over a certain income level you can't get the public option.

So insurance will be both mandatory and illegal. Sounds like the kind of crap you deal with trying to run a business in Mississippi except this affects everyone in every state.

KeiselPower99
07-16-2009, 01:01 PM
Id rather not be covered then forced to take it.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 01:03 PM
CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures

Director Says Proposed Changes Would Weaken Economy

Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

"On the contrary," Elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

The CBO is the official arbiter of the costs of legislation, and Elmendorf's stark testimony is certain to undermine support for the measures even as three House panels begin debate and aim to put a bill on the House floor before the August recess. Fiscal conservatives in the House, known as the Blue Dogs, were already threatening to block passage of legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, primarily due to concerns about the long-term costs of the House bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html

---------------------------------

Pray that the Blue Dog Dems stop this atrocity before it happens.

fansince'76
07-16-2009, 01:12 PM
Pray that the Blue Dog Dems stop this atrocity before it happens.

Like they stopped that POS cap-and-tax bill? I won't be holding my breath.

Godfather
07-16-2009, 01:14 PM
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.


And sadly, that's one thing the Republicans will never try to overturn because it's a sop to Big Insurance.

Nothing gets the two parties together like an opportunity to screw the people.

Godfather
07-16-2009, 01:32 PM
Killer-

Do you have a link to the bill? Not that I don't trust IBD (it's a very good newspaper) but I'd like to see that firsthand. Especially so I'll have a link to point people to.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 01:53 PM
Link that I found for Senate BIll...

go to icon on left border for pages

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 02:28 PM
That's how Democracy dies...not with a bang, but a whimper...

Godfather
07-16-2009, 02:30 PM
That wasn't in the Senate bill but I did find a House draft that had it:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090619/healthcarereform_discussiondraft.pdf

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 02:50 PM
If it's not in their now, it will be.

This is all moving towards single payer...it's a when, not if.

Just like higher taxes. The Dems would LOVE to be able to ramp up this deficit as high as possible and somehow make a GOP tax increase pay for it, but even that will be too late. It's coming, and soon...it HAS to.

Either that or someone needs to pull the plug on this asinine spending...

Preacher
07-16-2009, 03:05 PM
Come on everyone... the question was "Can anyone explain to me the basic pro's" Even if you disagree with it... (and spending time in military hospitals and Canadian hospitals, you can bet I am ABSOLUTELY against it), at least treat it like an intellectual exercise and TRY to see the other arguments.

1. Single Payer System. The fluctuations and driving of health insurance costs should be stabilized because much like Medicare, there is no bargaining and contracting for services rendered. Furthermore, there is only one source of income for the doctor. You don't have to worry about which hospital to go to if the ambulance comes and picks you up, because the single payor will pay any and all hospitals.

2. Coverage. There is no longer any questions on what is or is not covered. Are you injured? Your covered.

3. Lawsuit limitation. In effect, the doctors are govt. employees, thus, the frivolous lawsuits go away.

that is a few of em....


and they don't outweigh the bad... matter of fact, there are a lot of problems with these... but a proponent of single payer healthcare will provide at least the first 2 every time.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Panama is looking better and better

Panama was rated as the No.1 place in the world to retire abroad in the June edition of Smart Money magazine.

The main requirement for qualifying for a pension ado (retiree) visa is proof of a minimum income of $1000 per month.
This program is not age related provided you have a pension (which I do).

Import tax exemption for household goods up to $10,000 Tax exemption to import a new car every two years 25% discounts on utility bills 25% discount on airline tickets and 30% on other transportation 15% discount on loans made in your name 1% reduction on home mortgages for homes used for personal residence 20% discount on doctor's bills 15% on hospital services if no insurance applies 15% off dental and eye exams 10% discount on medicines 20% discount on bills for professional and technical services.

Health care is also both inexpensive and modern. Many people considering a retirement in Panama worry about the quality of health care, but such worries are unfounded here. Good-quality health care and modern hospitals are available throughout the country. Many Panamanian doctors are U.S.-trained, and hospital standards are on par with what you would find in North America or Europe. Particularly appealing to those looking to retire in Panama is an important additional advantage: both private health insurance and prescription drugs are readily available and much less expensive than their U.S. equivalents.

http://www.everything-panama.com/images/Panama-Beach-picture.jpg

http://www.everything-panama.com/

HometownGal
07-16-2009, 03:27 PM
but a proponent of single payer healthcare will provide at least the first 2 every time.

Having been forced to go on Medicare 7 years ago after the cancer unfortunately rendered me disabled, I can tell you that it isn't all it is hyped up to be. If I didn't have a supplemental insurance carrier, which I pay for out-of-pocket, I'd be living under a bridge by now because I'd be flat broke. :jerkit: government sponsored health insurance. Poor XT's mother has several very serious medical conditions and is on Medicare - she can't afford the supplemental insurance.

2. Coverage. There is no longer any questions on what is or is not covered. Are you injured? Your covered.

What good does it do to be covered if you can't get in to see your physician for several months because of long waiting lists? :doh: Ask the Canucks and the Brits how well that works for them.

3. Lawsuit limitation. In effect, the doctors are govt. employees, thus, the frivolous lawsuits go away.

I think it increases the frivolous lawsuits, as people see government as "money in the bank". As there are presently no limitations being placed on attorneys, the sharks will smell blood in the water.

MACH1
07-16-2009, 03:43 PM
Having been forced to go on Medicare 7 years ago after the cancer unfortunately rendered me disabled, I can tell you that it isn't all it is hyped up to be. If I didn't have a supplemental insurance carrier, which I pay for out-of-pocket, I'd be living under a bridge by now because I'd be flat broke. :jerkit: government sponsored health insurance. Poor XT's mother has several very serious medical conditions and is on Medicare - she can't afford the supplemental insurance.

That could be a thing of the past if obaamacare pass's.

I have to deal with the numb-skulls at medicare-medicaid on a daily basis and HTG is right. It ain't much!


What good does it do to be covered if you can't get in to see your physician for several months because of long waiting lists? :doh: Ask the Canucks and the Brits how well that works for them.

Don't forget they get to pick who lives or dies too. You may just cost to much to save.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 04:22 PM
Like they stopped that POS cap-and-tax bill? I won't be holding my breath.

Blue dogs getting riled up....


Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort


http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000 758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill

Dino 6 Rings
07-16-2009, 04:35 PM
Blue dogs getting riled up....


Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort


http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000 758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill

Any Politician in Arkansas answers to Walmart and Tyson.

Godfather
07-16-2009, 04:46 PM
Any Politician in Arkansas answers to Walmart and Tyson.

Wally World supports universal health care. They usually don't take sides on political issues but when they do they look for whatever will be economically beneficial to their shoppers.

Charlie Melancon (D-LA) was on the radio this morning talking about this issue and saying we needed to slow down. I wrote to him and proposed a radical expansion of health savings accounts and a repeal of the ban on giving discounts to fee for service patients. I also suggested he hook up with Paul Ryan on the issue because Ryan loves that kind of stuff.

steelersfanman92
07-16-2009, 06:31 PM
I would think it'd be the other way around. Outpatient surgery centers actually help the problem of bringing down outrageous prices. They create competition, and what you get there is a lot, lot closer to an actual legitimate cost.

Need to have your gall bladder out? Go to a hospital, they'll try to charge you $60,000. Go to an outpatient surgery center for the exact same thing, and their fee is maybe $7,000 or $8,000. I would think that under any kind of system that tries to make health care affordable, they'd try to send as many people as possible to those kinds of places.

What you are saying makes sense and is the way it should be, but the majority of out patient surgeries are considered "elective". By elective they are basically saying that if you don't have it you will live, regardless of the amount of pain and suffering. For example I just had a piece of cartilage in my wrist repaired at a surgery center. The cartilage had been torn for over a year and was causing a lot of issues. While talking to the nurses and other employees there they told me that I would probably not get the surgery, or if I did it would be probably 3-5 years down the road under socialized healthcare.

The surgery centers just wouldn't make enough money with having to wait all that time to do a surgery, and most do very few "non-elective" surgeries. They wouldn't be able to afford to stay in buisness doing so few procedures.

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 09:18 PM
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/obamacare.jpg

Fire Haley
07-16-2009, 09:35 PM
Come on everyone... the question was "Can anyone explain to me the basic pro's" .

Yeah - go ahead, tell us how simple it is - I dare you.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/3723116261_667fd50670_o.jpg

An Office of Minority Health?

Really?

WTF?

MACH1
07-16-2009, 11:25 PM
Notice how its a short straight line from the consumer to the IRS?

Fire Haley
07-17-2009, 12:03 AM
Notice how its a short straight line from the consumer to the IRS?


You noticed that....good...straight shot from 'Consumer's and ' Employers' (Business Owners') to the IRS


Imagine that

Hammer67
07-17-2009, 06:18 AM
Back on topic, I found this chart...

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

steelreserve
07-17-2009, 10:53 AM
What you are saying makes sense and is the way it should be, but the majority of out patient surgeries are considered "elective". By elective they are basically saying that if you don't have it you will live, regardless of the amount of pain and suffering. For example I just had a piece of cartilage in my wrist repaired at a surgery center. The cartilage had been torn for over a year and was causing a lot of issues. While talking to the nurses and other employees there they told me that I would probably not get the surgery, or if I did it would be probably 3-5 years down the road under socialized healthcare.

The surgery centers just wouldn't make enough money with having to wait all that time to do a surgery, and most do very few "non-elective" surgeries. They wouldn't be able to afford to stay in buisness doing so few procedures.

Well, if insurance companies now consider it "elective," that means people still have to pay for all or most of it themselves, right? There won't be anything stopping people from doing the same thing under the government plan. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.

devilsdancefloor
07-17-2009, 11:29 AM
Could someone please explain to me the basic "pros" of a universal, socialized, government run health care system over what we have now? I have the basic cons in place, but any unbiased analysis would be great.

There is too much bias out there on this topic.

For the record, I am against the Feds running anything like this on our tax dollars as that goes against the responsibilities of the Federal government.

i think it would be awesome if we got the same health care plan that congress gets! oh wait we will not so i dont see any upside...

revefsreleets
07-17-2009, 11:55 AM
Here is some more common sense critiquing of the proposed changes:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/51002492.html

Obama's unbelievable option plan

By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune

Published on Friday, Jul 17, 2009

CHICAGO: Some statements are inherently unbelievable. Such as: ''I am an official of the government of Nigeria, and I would like to deposit $60 million in your bank account.''

Or: ''I'm Barry Bonds, and I thought it was flaxseed oil.''

And this new one: ''I'm Barack Obama, and I favor more competition in health insurance.''

That, however, is the claim behind his support of a government-run health insurance plan to give consumers one more choice. The president says a ''public option'' would improve the functioning of the market because it would ''force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.''

He has indicated that while he is willing to discuss a variety of remedies as part of health insurance reform, this one is non-negotiable. House Democrats, not surprisingly, included the government plan in the 1,000-page bill they unveiled Tuesday.

It will come as a surprise to private health insurance providers that they have not had to compete up till now. Nationally, there are some 1,300 companies battling for customers. Critics say in many states, one or two insurers enjoy a dominant position. But market dominance doesn't necessarily mean insufficient competition.

Microsoft's dominance of software didn't prevent the rise of Google, and Google's dominance of search engine traffic didn't prevent Microsoft from offering Bing. If a few health insurance providers were suppressing competition at the expense of consumers, you'd expect to see obscene profits. But net profit margins in the business run about 3 percent, only slightly above the median for all industries.

There are reasons, though, to think that the president's real enthusiasm is not for competition but for government expansion. Free-market advocates want to foster competition by letting consumers in one state buy coverage offered in other states. If WellPoint has more than half the business in Indiana, why not let Indiana residents or companies go to California or Minnesota to see if they can find options that are cheaper or better?

But the administration and its allies show no interest in removing that particular barrier to competition. Maybe that's because it would reduce the power of state regulators to boss insurance companies around.

Nor does Obama believe in fostering competition in other health insurance realms — such as existing government health insurance programs. John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy Analysis, suggests letting Americans now enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) select a voucher to buy private coverage if they want. Don't hold your breath waiting for the administration to push that idea.

Supporters of the ''public option'' think it can achieve efficiencies allowing it to underprice existing insurers. But efficiency is to government programs what barbecue sauce is to an ice-cream sundae: not a typical component. Nor is there any reason to think Washington can administer health insurance with appreciably lower overhead than private companies.

Medicare supposedly does so, but that is partly because it doesn't have to engage in marketing to attract customers, which this program would. It also spends less than private companies combating fraud and unwarranted treatments — a type of monitoring that spends dollars while saving more.

As the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, ''The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach.'' False economies are one reason Medicare has done a poor job of controlling costs.

But a public program of the sort Democrats propose doesn't have to control costs, because in a pinch it can count on the government to keep it in business. Competition is healthy, but how are private companies supposed to compete with an operation that can tap the Treasury?

Students of the Obama economic policy will also note a curious consistency in its approach to economic issues. Some problems, like the near-collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, came about because competition worked very well at serving consumers and punishing poorly run companies.

Some problems, such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well. In both cases, the administration proposes the same solution: more federal spending and a bigger federal role.

Will introducing a government-run insurance program work? After all, that Nigerian financial scam works. Just not necessarily the way you hope.

Chapman is a Chicago Tribune columnist. He blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve—chapman.

Hammer67
07-17-2009, 02:25 PM
I have to agree with Mr. Chapman's assessment....

Fire Haley
07-17-2009, 08:26 PM
A more seachable version of Obamacare:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+3200:

43Hitman
07-17-2009, 08:47 PM
Yeah - go ahead, tell us how simple it is - I dare you.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/3723116261_667fd50670_o.jpg

An Office of Minority Health?

Really?

WTF?

What is a Public Health Workforce Corps? Is that the brown shirts I've been hearing about?

Fire Haley
07-17-2009, 08:50 PM
I have no idea. The WHO will tell you what diseases are important to the gulag.

Get you a government badge and a secret security clearance like me.

We be going places in the new syndicate.

Dino 6 Rings
07-20-2009, 10:42 AM
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.

The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.

The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.

Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.

But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.

Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.

"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."

Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.

Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html

revefsreleets
07-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Well, that seems like a really great idea...they pay zero taxes, and those of us already paying, well, we'll get to pay even more so they can enjoy benefits that most of us paying taxes STILL won't be able to receive.

This deal gets more rotten literally by the day (after all, these nitwits have only had complete power for about 180 days).

stlrtruck
07-20-2009, 12:44 PM
As my father-in-law and I were discussing yesterday, many of the politicians aren't looking past the initial page of this bill.

They aren't realizing the undaunting affect it will have on the private sector as well as unemployment. This will drive many insurance companies in different directions, thus forcing them to lay off individuals because the health care portion of their business is crippled by the governments incredibly low priced insurance.

Obama is trying to save our country, he's trying to destroy it! One idiotic bill at a time! Bend over America, here comes your stimulus and health care reform!

The_WARDen
07-20-2009, 12:48 PM
bout time we get socialized heatlh care. It will definitley be better than the HMO running AMOK plan we have now.

I hope he figures out a way to tax gun owners to help pay for it.

Fire Haley
07-20-2009, 01:30 PM
We need another sin tax.

$200 tax on a case of beer oughta do it.

revefsreleets
07-20-2009, 01:43 PM
bout time we get socialized heatlh care. It will definitley be better than the HMO running AMOK plan we have now.

I hope he figures out a way to tax gun owners to help pay for it.

Fiddling away as Rome burns...gotta love it.

KeiselPower99
07-20-2009, 01:47 PM
We are the Roman Empire of our time and here it comes a crashing down. Dont this idiots read history??