Voting against your own interests

[Labarum]

I am conscious of the sensitivities of expressing a view on how another nation orders its affairs, and therefore I offer no personal opinion; but this article on the BBC news site I found interesting. It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it; and attempts to analyse the psychology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm

[Nobeard]

I also find this interesting.

I can happen when the opponents of an issue are allowed to take control of the issue in the media. They then give their own definations to the issue, demonize the issue. Make up stories about the issue. Like "death panels" while ignoring that insurance companies are the ones with "death panels" when they decide that a medical procedure is too expensive, etc.

They use simple, one sided, easy to remember ideas and especially simple easily repeatable phrases that convey their ideas. "death panels" "social ism" "nazi" (yes they can make people think that someone is a social ist and a nazi at the same time!!)


((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm)))

I've heard followers of these ideas say "keep govermnment out of my Medicare" Now, since Medicare and Social Security are both highly popular GOVERNMENT programs, You would think that these people would indeed look at what might be best for them. Or at least try to think thru the issue. But they get all fired up. The opponents play on their fears.

But mostly they define the issue before clear thoughts can take hold.

And its financed by the corporate interests that stand to loose money because of the issue.

[AdrianR]

Brian
I am assuming you are British...

You should be aware that the BBC is a very left-biased organization that supports governmental control over our lives, and wishes no malice against the NHS or the idea of social medicine. They are also very pro-Obama.

Now, I see this as a part of the ongoing narrative in the USA that seeks to classify those who would disagree with, or oppose the government - especially in a policy area that may appear, at first glance, to have wide-ranging benefits - as some type of derangement.

The tone of this article is patronising in the extreme to those who value their liberty above the idea of financing mediocre healthcare for all.

[Nobeard]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.

I thought it was an accurate article. This is how the rest of the world see us. Sadly, this is how politics are played in America.

[red71veloce]

Yeah, the only thing worse than politicians telling us they know what is best for us is possibly a foreign journalist telling us he knows what is best for us.

[Obsessed]

((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm))

FYI, it's not political censorship - the name of a certain medication for ED that is often the subject of spam happens to be contained within the word you can't type. I think they block it to prevent spam from inundating the board. After all, one can type "communism" and "state ownership of the means of production" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" without any problems!

By the way, I agree with the rest of what you said in post no. 2.

[curtis909]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.

I thought it was an accurate article. This is how the rest of the world see us. Sadly, this is how politics are played in America.

+1 I find the same and the news reported there seems to get to me a day before the major papers in america have something to say about it and then make it out like they broke the story. Long live the BBC....:001_smile

[RBE17]

It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it;

I didn't read the article nor do I plan to. My only thought on the situation is that perhaps even some folks that could benefit from it feel it's wrong.

[Nobeard]

Yeah, the only thing worse than politicians telling us they know what is best for us is possibly a foreign journalist telling us he knows what is best for us.

But the USA is so important in the world that people in other countries have a lot of interest in what we do.

Picture the world as a room with several lions, 50 collies, 50 doberman dogs, 1 bull dog, a lot of squirrels, a few lambs.

The lions don't care what anyone else is doing. But its not in the lions interest for a fight to start.
The others are all concerned with the lions. They talk about what the lions are doing.

Are they wrong to talk about the lions? What if a collie has a good idea. Should a lion listen to the idea or tell the collie to "shut up"

[Nobeard]

FYI, it's not political censorship - the name of a certain medication for ED that is often the subject of spam happens to be contained within the word you can't type. I think they block it to prevent spam from inundating the board. After all, one can type "communism" and "state ownership of the means of production" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" without any problems!

By the way, I agree with the rest of what you said in post no. 2.

OK, sorry that I jumped to conclusions

[Baloosh]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.



That's some heavy-duty lol right there. BBC is pretty left-leaning, by even left-leaning standards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

[82R100]

Sovia-gram would be a difficult term to express, too. :smile:

[Bertilak]

I didn't read the article nor do I plan to. My only thought on the situation is that perhaps even some folks that could benefit from it feel it's wrong.

Amen.

It is also best to look at the long term picture. Health care is not "free" no mater what you do. The only question is who do you believe will be better at delivering it: the free market, social-ism (House version) or fascism (Senate version) -- if I have that sorted out right. One wants explicit takeover (the "public" option) and the other wants to keep symbolic private ownership but elevate every important decision to government bureaucrats (e.g. the "death panels"). There is probably a different mix of those in each version.

People whose interest is in somehow getting a free ride are not only selfish (or attributing selfish motives to others) but sadly mistaken about how free the ride will be and where it will actually take them. Don't get me wrong. I believe there should be some sort of safety net for those in unfortunate circumstances but you don't convert a whole industry to a department of the government for that. And to be fair, most people in need do NOT support the government takeover -- thus the OP's question.

By the way, much of the health care industry *supports* the government takeover as it gives them locked in customers. Many corporations are big on Capitalism but not so fond of a free market. (Maintaining that free market is one of government's primary and legitimate functions. Think anti-trust.) Of course any unions involved also support it.

The widespread dislike for Obama-Reid-Pelosi-care is one of the things that gives me hope for this country. The fact that we came so close to getting it anyway is one of the things that saddens me.

I often post this link as a starting point to think about *real* health care reform: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html. That is written by John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods, and far from a right-wing apologist for the health care industry.

[RexHavoc]

They use simple, one sided, easy to remember ideas and especially simple easily repeatable phrases that convey their ideas. "death panels" "social ism" "nazi" (yes they can make people think that someone is a social ist and a nazi at the same time!!)


((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm))((aparently "nazi" is ok to write)





What is the difference, care to explain?

[82R100]

What is the difference, care to explain?

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?

[RexHavoc]

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?

yes especialy since the term "Nazi" is derived from Nationalsozialist.

[Bertilak]

What is the difference, care to explain?

Google might help.

EDIT: I didn't mean to be curt or sarcastic. It is just that there are *many* aspects of both fascism and social-ism. Some are similar and some are different. Hard to summarize in a simple post.

[RexHavoc]

•The truth of the matter is that in actually ideology the differences between communism and fascism are very small. fascists are often mislabeled as "right wing" and anti-communists because during the rise of Stalin all ideas different from the main Moscow approved, line of communism were dubbed "right-wing." stolen from the interwebs


since I don't want to get this thread locked...........I am going to go shave now

[Stubblefield]

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?Without invoking Godwins's Law, I just want to point out that Hitler was in many ways a Social-ist. A quick reading of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich will fill you in on the details.

Good luck and have a nice day.

[CCMphysician]

Godwin's Law!

[CCMphysician]

Without invoking Godwins's Law...

Darn it, you beat me to it.

-CCM

[Mr. O]

I am conscious of the sensitivities of expressing a view on how another nation orders its affairs, and therefore I offer no personal opinion; but this article on the BBC news site I found interesting. It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it; and attempts to analyse the psychology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm

American Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people. If the will of the people says no on government controlled and mandated health care despite the good that may be involved, it is the duty of the elected officials to comply. If the BBC cannot understand this, not sure what to say.

[82R100]

American Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people. If the will of the people says no on government controlled and mandated health care despite the good that may be involved, it is the duty of the elected officials to comply. If the BBC cannot understand this, not sure what to say.

One might argue that a simple majority should be sufficient...

[airplanedoc]

The fact is that many people vote against their own interest on any number of topics.

I know people who admit, that they vote for someone because their church, union, rush limbaugh, etc. told them that is who they should vote for. Even when they should clearly vote for someone else to promote his or her own personal interest.

[Bertilak]

One might argue that a simple majority should be sufficient...

And one might argue that it is not. Here are the first two links Google shows for "US Constitution tyranny of the majority".

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm
http://www.rense.com/general64/madi.htm

The "Tyranny of the Majority" was a topic close to the heats of the Founding Fathers of the US. It is one reason we are a representative and not a direct majority. It is why the constitution has so many "checks and balances" built into it.

[Obsessed]

And one might argue that it is not. Here are the first two links Google shows for "US Constitution tyranny of the majority".

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm
http://www.rense.com/general64/madi.htm

The "Tyranny of the Majority" was a topic close to the heats of the Founding Fathers of the US. It is one reason we are a representative and not a direct majority. It is why the constitution has so many "checks and balances" built into it.

I'm guessing the issue that 82R100 is referring to is the idea that the Constitution provides that legislation needs to be passed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, and that the requirement of 60 votes to close off debate is an improper de facto amendment of the Constitution because it effectively requires a supermajority to pass anything. You are absolutely correct that the Framers feared the tyranny of the majority, but bear in mind that the Senate is already counter-majoritarian because each state has an equal number of senators regardless of population (a setup that would undeniably be an unconstitutional violation of the "one person, one vote" principle were it not actually part of the Constitution).

[bamafan64]

If I knew absolutely nothing at all about the healthcare bill they were trying to pass, what scared me the most was the fact that the ones writing and supporting the bill made it very clear that they were not going to lose their current healthcare plan and would not participate in the one they wanted us to have.

[Bertilak]

I'm guessing the issue that 82R100 is referring to is the idea that the Constitution provides that legislation needs to be passed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, and that the requirement of 60 votes to close off debate is an improper de facto amendment of the Constitution because it effectively requires a supermajority to pass anything. You are absolutely correct that the Framers feared the tyranny of the majority, but bear in mind that the Senate is already counter-majoritarian because each state has an equal number of senators regardless of population (a setup that would undeniably be an unconstitutional violation of the "one person, one vote" principle were it not actually part of the Constitution).

Actually, the cloture rule came about to put the brakes on the practice of filibustering. There used to be NO rule to stop that. The cloture rule gives a means to do so. So without the cloture rule we might have even MORE cases of the minority holding back the majority. I'm not up on exactly how filibustering works and think it can still be used as a tactic but I expect it is difficult to pull off (since it is not widely used).

[Obsessed]

Actually, the cloture rule came about to put the brakes on the practice of filibustering. There used to be NO rule to stop that. The cloture rule gives a means to do so. So without the cloture rule we might have even MORE cases of the minority holding back the majority.

That's true, but just because the prior practice was worse doesn't mean the current one is good.

In any event, isn't filibustering too easy now? I say make them all (Democrat or Republican) actually get up there and keep talking. Make 'em bring in the cots and the catheters. Nowadays, they can filibuster while taking in their dry cleaning.

Seriously, it really is too easy now, and does effectively require 60 votes to pass anything. If they were actually required to do an old-school filibuster, I'd imagine it would be much more infrequent and principled and thus less objectionable.

[norton]

If I knew absolutely nothing at all about the healthcare bill they were trying to pass, what scared me the most was the fact that the ones writing and supporting the bill made it very clear that they were not going to lose their current healthcare plan and would not participate in the one they wanted us to have.

Indeed one might wonder why such a wonderful health plan (paid for by the government - read: your taxes) is available to congresscritters only (oh, and ex-congresscritters and their families - for life).

Amazingly, not many of these same critters (even the ones that are millionaires) refuse this 'government run plan', including these same critters that are so against making it available for their fellow citizens.

I can only imagine how awful it must be.

Something tells me we're not getting the whole story here.

[Bertilak]

That's true, but just because the prior practice was worse doesn't mean the current one is good.

In any event, isn't filibustering too easy now? I say make them all (Democrat or Republican) actually get up there and keep talking. Make 'em bring in the cots and the catheters. Nowadays, they can filibuster while taking in their dry cleaning.

Seriously, it really is too easy now, and does effectively require 60 votes to pass anything. If they were actually required to do an old-school filibuster, I'd imagine it would be much more infrequent and principled and thus less objectionable.

I'm all for that! CSPAN might be fun!

[Emmett]

I'm all for that! CSPAN might be fun!

I dunno, it's not like they have to filibuster on the topic at hand. Would a reading of the DC phonebook be more or less interesting than what's usually on c-span? :001_tongu

[82R100]

That's true, but just because the prior practice was worse doesn't mean the current one is good.

In any event, isn't filibustering too easy now? I say make them all (Democrat or Republican) actually get up there and keep talking. Make 'em bring in the cots and the catheters. Nowadays, they can filibuster while taking in their dry cleaning.

Seriously, it really is too easy now, and does effectively require 60 votes to pass anything. If they were actually required to do an old-school filibuster, I'd imagine it would be much more infrequent and principled and thus less objectionable.

That was my point. I just got back from a long walk.

Thanks for handling that for me. :smile:

- Chris

[Bertilak]

I dunno, it's not like they have to filibuster on the topic at hand. Would a reading of the DC phonebook be more or less interesting than what's usually on c-span? :001_tongu

If the guy reading it was slurring his words, had a three-day-old beard, was in bad need of a shower and had to pee really really bad it could be fun -- that's the image I had in mind.

[Obsessed]

That was my point. I just got back from a long walk.

Thanks for handling that for me. :smile:

- Chris

No problem - thanks for handling getting some exercise for me. :w00t:

(I had no intention of putting words on your mouth, by the way.)

[82R100]

No problem - thanks for handling getting some exercise for me. :w00t:

(I had no intention of putting words on your mouth, by the way.)

Went 3.8 miles!

86255

[airplanedoc]

Parking lot looks nearly empty, My tax dollars are not working too hard.:sad:

[82R100]

Parking lot looks nearly empty, My tax dollars are not working too hard.:sad:

The parking lot's totally empty now. The last pickup truck rolled off the line September 30, 2009. :sad:

[jazzman]

American Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people. If the will of the people says no on government controlled and mandated health care despite the good that may be involved, it is the duty of the elected officials to comply. If the BBC cannot understand this, not sure what to say.

The majority of voters in the last presidential election voted for the candidate who said he would push for health care reform. The majority of House members passed a bill for health care reform. The majority of senators voted for a bill for health care reform. But we don't have health care reform. It looks like the "will of the people" is for health care reform, but the Party of No is successfully blocking it.

[Bertilak]

The majority of voters in the last presidential election voted for the candidate who said he would push for health care reform. The majority of House members passed a bill for health care reform. The majority of senators voted for a bill for health care reform. But we don't have health care reform. It looks like the "will of the people" is for health care reform, but the Party of No is successfully blocking it.

Instead of true reform of an admittedly troubled health care system, the bills are a government takeover of the health care system and the destruction of a big part of our free market economy. We could discuss that but let's not pretend that those bills are something else.

A big reason our health care system is in trouble is because of too much government involvement already. The government already controls much of the industry through Medicare/Medicaid -- a system that is scammed for many millions (billions?) of dollars every year, has a huge and complex bureaucracy that costs even more to deal with.There is a tax structure that forces a divide between those paying for health care (employers) from those consuming it (employees). Cost-lowering competition is blocked by laws preventing people from shopping around for health care the same as they would for other big-ticket items.

So yes, people want health care reform but they do not want another monsterous government agency that will actually limit their health care choices.

[mparker762]

The majority of voters in the last presidential election voted for the candidate who said he would push for health care reform. The majority of House members passed a bill for health care reform. The majority of senators voted for a bill for health care reform. But we don't have health care reform. It looks like the "will of the people" is for health care reform, but the Party of No is successfully blocking it.

How did they block it? There were health care bills that passed the house and senate that clearly weren't blocked by the republicans, and AFAIK the democrats haven't yet managed to merge two bills so the republicans haven't even had a chance to stop that bill. And I thought the new senator hadn't taken his seat yet so they don't even have enough votes to sustain a filibuster or stop cloture or whatever it is that senators do.

[jazzman]

How did they block it? There were health care bills that passed the house and senate that clearly weren't blocked by the republicans, and AFAIK the democrats haven't yet managed to merge two bills so the republicans haven't even had a chance to stop that bill. And I thought the new senator hadn't taken his seat yet so they don't even have enough votes to sustain a filibuster or stop cloture or whatever it is that senators do.

As I am sure you know, 41 votes in the senate can block passage of a bill. The Democrats could not get all 60 of its members to vote for anything meaningful on health care, although they could get more than 50, and the Republicans were successful in getting all of their senators to say they would vote no. That's how.

[mparker762]

As I am sure you know, 41 votes in the senate can block passage of a bill. The Democrats could not get all 60 of its members to vote for anything meaningful on health care, although they could get more than 50, and the Republicans were successful in getting all of their senators to say they would vote no. That's how.

No I did not know that. AFAIK the democrats haven't yet put up the combined bill for a vote, but it would appear that I'm wrong here. What was the bill number and when was this vote in which the republicans stopped this bill from becoming law?

[jazzman]

No I did not know that. AFAIK the democrats haven't yet put up the combined bill for a vote, but it would appear that I'm wrong here. What was the bill number and when was this vote in which the republicans stopped this bill from becoming law?

"As I am sure you know, 41 votes in the senate can block passage of a bill. The Democrats could not get all 60 of its members to vote for anything meaningful on health care, although they could get more than 50, and the Republicans were successful in getting all of their senators to say they would vote no. That's how."

[raisindot]

"As I am sure you know, 41 votes in the senate can block passage of a bill. The Democrats could not get all 60 of its members to vote for anything meaningful on health care, although they could get more than 50, and the Republicans were successful in getting all of their senators to say they would vote no. That's how."

Rather than trying to come up with some sort of lame compromise, let the Senate Democrats try to put the current bill to a vote and let the Republicans filibuster it and let the Democrats fail to get cloture. The American public will see Republicans tying up the Senate for weeks at a time and their votes will formally put them on the record as opposing health care reform.

Then, when more and more out of work Americans find that they cannot afford health care because their COBRA benefits ran out and none of the greedy insurers and their pharmaceutical conspirators will do anything to help (as they don't do today--ask anyone who has tried to get a good health plan on their own), or their new employers don't offer it (since they won't have to), you'll see how this so-called "opposition" to health care reform melts away. And those opposing it will pay the price politically.

Jeff in Boston

[Bertilak]

Rather than trying to come up with some sort of lame compromise, let the Senate Democrats try to put the current bill to a vote and let the Republicans filibuster it and let the Democrats fail to get cloture. The American public will see Republicans tying up the Senate for weeks at a time and their votes will formally put them on the record as opposing health care reform.

Then, when more and more out of work Americans find that they cannot afford health care because their COBRA benefits ran out and none of the greedy insurers and their pharmaceutical conspirators will do anything to help (as they don't do today--ask anyone who has tried to get a good health plan on their own), or their new employers don't offer it (since they won't have to), you'll see how this so-called "opposition" to health care reform melts away. And those opposing it will pay the price politically.

Jeff in Boston

The Republicans have gained in the generic "Republican vs. Democrat" polls during this whole health care debate so apparently there is a good number of voters who don't see it your way and there is no apparent political cost to Republicans -- quite the contrary. Even in Massachusetts a Republican who explicitly campaigned on the issue won the election. Also, preventing unpopular legislation is not "tying up the Senate". It is the unwanted attempt to push through another unpopular government agency (not the same thing as "reforming health care") that is wasting the Senate's time. See, there is more than one way to look at this.

Also, my son was able to get a perfectly good health plan -- from Scott and White. He had several choices and picked one that covered just catastrophic situations, keeping the costs down. My daughter also had a Scott and White plan but for young women it is more expensive as there is the potential cost for pregnancy. It is nice that young men aren't forced to subsidize health plans for young women. So there is no conspiracy to deny health plans to people, at least here in Texas.

[82R100]

The Republicans have gained in the generic "Republican vs. Democrat" polls during this whole health care debate so apparently there is a good number of voters who don't see it your way and there is no apparent political cost to Republicans -- quite the contrary. Even in Massachusetts a Republican who explicitly campaigned on the issue won the election. Also, preventing unpopular legislation is not "tying up the Senate". It is the unwanted attempt to push through another unpopular government agency (not the same thing as "reforming health care") that is wasting the Senate's time. See, there is more than one way to look at this.

Also, my son was able to get a perfectly good health plan -- from Scott and White. He had several choices and picked one that covered just catastrophic situations, keeping the costs down. My daughter also had a Scott and White plan but for young women it is more expensive as there is the potential cost for pregnancy. It is nice that young men aren't forced to subsidize health plans for young women. So there is no conspiracy to deny health plans to people, at least here in Texas.

Legislation isn't determined by public opinion polls or by an individual senate seat. It should be determined by a simple majority. We're well aware of your "way of looking at this".

I don't think anyone believes that there's a conspiracy to deny coverage to healthy young people. It's a little bit of a reach to extrapolate that to apply to all people.

I'm in the unfortunate position of possibly having to insure my wife and myself beyond COBRA for several years before I either get a benefits-providing job or qualify for Medicare (in another 12 years). My COBRA expires in late July. I'll have a better idea then of what's available for a 53 year old and his wife.

- Chris

[jazzman]

Rather than trying to come up with some sort of lame compromise, let the Senate Democrats try to put the current bill to a vote and let the Republicans filibuster it and let the Democrats fail to get cloture. The American public will see Republicans tying up the Senate for weeks at a time and their votes will formally put them on the record as opposing health care reform.

Then, when more and more out of work Americans find that they cannot afford health care because their COBRA benefits ran out and none of the greedy insurers and their pharmaceutical conspirators will do anything to help (as they don't do today--ask anyone who has tried to get a good health plan on their own), or their new employers don't offer it (since they won't have to), you'll see how this so-called "opposition" to health care reform melts away. And those opposing it will pay the price politically.

Jeff in Boston

+1
And Mr. Paulson's comments under yours make a lot of sense to me, too. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that my party has not been able to come up with something that really makes sense on this issue.

I don't have a problem with young, healthy people rolling the dice with catastrophic policies, so long as they don't come crying to the government if that causes problems down the road. For many, it's the most logical choice if they can afford to pay out of pocket for routine care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, Congress' failure to come up with real reform last year happened because too many politicians from both parties are beholden to powerful interests in the health industry.

[mparker762]

"As I am sure you know, 41 votes in the senate can block passage of a bill. The Democrats could not get all 60 of its members to vote for anything meaningful on health care, although they could get more than 50, and the Republicans were successful in getting all of their senators to say they would vote no. That's how."

So what's the problem with this one? Why did all the democratic and republican senators that supported the first senate bill suddenly back out of the revised one?

[Bertilak]

So what's the problem with this one? Why did all the democratic and republican senators that supported the first senate bill suddenly back out of the revised one?

Because they were strong armed and/or bribed into voting for it the first time around. The fact that the two bills are nearly irreconcilable hints at that. They now have a way to vote their conscience without getting punished by Reid, Pelosi and Obama for doing so. And as time went by they were able to better understand just how unpopular their votes were -- opinion polls dropped them like hot rocks.

And actually, I don't think any Republicans (maybe one but I don't even think that?) voted for the original. Their votes were not required to top 50%.

[Bertilak]

I don't think anyone believes that there's a conspiracy to deny coverage to healthy young people. It's a little bit of a reach to extrapolate that to apply to all people.


Apparently rasindot believes so. I was responding to his "none of the greedy insurers and their pharmaceutical conspirators will do anything to help"

[professorchaos]

I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage.

2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.

3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process.

5. Transparent healthcare costs.

[Bertilak]

I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage.

2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.

3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process.

5. Transparent healthcare costs.

Amen to all of that. Sounds a lot like the ideas put forward by John Mackey of Whole Foods fame. Except his list had seven items. :001_smile

[Obsessed]

I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage.

2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.

3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process.

5. Transparent healthcare costs.

What regulation, if any, of health insurance companies do you believe should be permitted?

Bob, same question to you.

(I'm not trying to make a point with this question; I'm just curious about your views given the statements above.)

[Blondie]

The majority of voters in the last presidential election voted for the candidate who said he would push for health care reform. The majority of House members passed a bill for health care reform. The majority of senators voted for a bill for health care reform. But we don't have health care reform. It looks like the "will of the people" is for health care reform, but the Party of No is successfully blocking it.

I really don't think that the platform Barack Hussein Obama ran on was devoted solely to healthcare reform. He ran on a platform of change. Realistically, the Democrats could have run ANYONE, and won the presidency. Just like a Republican defeat was certain after Watergate and Nixon. Beyond Bush, the Republican controlled congress let spending rise, and government grow remarkably. "Change" was inevitable, I'm just not sure it was the right change. We would be far better off breaking from either of the two parties, and embracing a mentality like this, in all of our everyday lives:


I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage.

2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.

3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process.

5. Transparent healthcare costs.

Government needs to be smaller because larger government is not sustainable. I heard a figure the other day that the Avg salary in the private sector is around 41K, and the avg salary in the federal government is 71K. Since the government does not create wealth, and gets all it's money from the people, those figures are not sustainable.

[Bertilak]

What regulation, if any, of health insurance companies do you believe should be permitted?

Bob, same question to you.

(I'm not trying to make a point with this question; I'm just curious about your views given the statements above.)

Name an abuse and I'll see if it sounds like it needs regulation, or if it is already the result of existing over-regulation (or tax codes).

If the first impulse to solving a problem is by increased regulation then I think that impulse needs to be checked and some clearer thinking applied. Earlier in this thread I posted a link to John Mackey's proposals (which, as I have noted, are similar to what Prof Chaos listed). See my post #13 or Google if really interested.

[Obsessed]

Name an abuse and I'll see if it sounds like it needs regulation, or if it is already the result of existing over-regulation (or tax codes).

Ah, you've cunningly run the clock out on me for this afternoon! :laugh:

[Bertilak]

Ah, you've cunningly run the clock out on me for this afternoon! :laugh:

You give me too much credit. I wish I could be that cunning on purpose!

[cricky101]

I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage.

2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.

3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process.

5. Transparent healthcare costs.

I would love to see those reforms take place, but how are any of them possible without government intervention? Leave it up to the health care companies to do the right thing for their customers at the cost of profit?

What am I missing?

[Bertilak]

I would love to see those reforms take place, but how are any of them possible without government intervention? Leave it up to the health care companies to do the right thing for their customers at the cost of profit?

What am I missing?

Most of that is the *removal* of existing government policies (interventions) that are messing up our health care system.

[garyg]

Some great points here, I just finally read through the thread. I try & stay out of political threads here .. but I failed ..

If I recall correctly, the original post was about why Americans wouldn't want "free" stuff or benefits (paraphrased).

It was said, but then again, the truth is a very stubborn thing. Nothing at all in the world is without cost, or free, or totally in one's own interest. Ok, vote for free hellth care, be waiting in line a month, or 2x taxes? Anybody think the doctors are going to take a 50% pay cut?

It isn't the Dems or the Pubs that are devils, it isn't the system of government, it is you my fellow Americans. As the old poster said, "He who isn't a communist at 20 has no heart, He who still is a communist at 40 has no head". That is also paraphrased. Divide Bill Gates income by 200? million Americans & see what we get by taxing him to death. But, in bad times we love FDR & welfare.

I distrust the corporate interests also in getting "free" stuff, like labor, because that is the labor market at present. Oh, heck, wasn't free, just added it to the cost of your car .. I also distrust the labor interest that takes a cut for the leadership out of what they extort from those corporatations besides the dues. Oh, heck, wasn't free, just added it to the cost of your car .. Google "UAW Black Lake". Delphi threw the salaried retirees into the Fed "free" system, this month they get up to a 70% reduction in their pensions. Great Government program, eh? As long as the politicians and their media run the country, with an assist from the churches, they will be taken care of, it hasn't changed in a couple milleniums, check the two only powerful institutions in the Dark Ages, church & state .. if you didn't serve one of those institutions you were as Jethro put it a serf or a knave ..

Why would one think it would be better now?

But, there are only a very few national economies based solely on services, rather than export or manufacturing. America is too big to be one of those, the ongoing question is simply when it changes. I hope for the better, but as long as Walmart is the business model .. I am saving ammunition

End rant, just a very bad day here, I will go shave, with a safety, & calm down

PS: this rant may have been caused by completing my tax return .. so ymmv, just sayin', any other disclaimers you have? :cursing:

[Bertilak]

PS: this rant may have been caused by completing my tax return ..

All is forgiven then!

Have a (virtual) beer on me ... :a8:

[Obsessed]

Ah, you've cunningly run the clock out on me for this afternoon! :laugh:


You give me too much credit. I wish I could be that cunning on purpose!

Probably just as well, in any event. I like these kinds of discussions, but I just don't have the time to think through and write out the kind of response I'd like to. Then again, I'm very thankful I have a job and the ability to do things like eat and have a place to live, so it all evens out.

[NightLad]

Like many, I found this a very interesting read. I personally feel that it is important to strive to understand both sides of an issue prior to forming an opinion, even (and often, especially) when the source leans toward a different perspective. I figure that if I limited myself to reading only the opinions that I already agree with, than I am resigning myself to being a manipulated tool of the media I might otherwise accuse others of being. I find that by exposing myself to conflicting beliefs I am forced to evaluate and reconcile my own, which can make them stronger or change them in ways that better reflect what I feel is most valid.

On that note; I feel that the BBC is one of the last few descent news networks around. As an American comedian once put it (and I regret not being able to remember his name)…


The difference between American and British News Media:
British: Tonight’s top story; Nuclear Warheads are pointed at America’s heartland as tense negotiations break down…
American: Tonight’s stop story; Britney Spears forgets to wear panties!

[professorchaos]

What regulation, if any, of health insurance companies do you believe should be permitted?

Bob, same question to you.

(I'm not trying to make a point with this question; I'm just curious about your views given the statements above.)

That is a tough question to answer. Given my political leanings, I'd like to say the less regulation the better. Yet as a practical matter there can't be zero regulation. We as consumers regulate with our dollars. Produce a better product at a lower price than the competition, you get more business. No propping up the losers, companies either compete successfully or fail.

[professorchaos]

Amen to all of that. Sounds a lot like the ideas put forward by John Mackey of Whole Foods fame. Except his list had seven items. :001_smile

It is very similar. I was pleased to see his list and dismaye to see the rage it inspired. It was composed of many of the most common sense steps advocated to make healthcare cheaper and more accessible for all.

I understand that there are those who are more comfortable with big government than big business. And that is okay. We don't have to agree on everything or anything. With regard to issue at hand, is healthcare - life and death decisions - something we really want to politicize? And make no mistake, any reform which ends with more government involvement will be politicized.

[Zenas]

Fifteen posts until Godwin's Law was evoked. That's a shame. I've seen far worse forums get Godwin's in full swing by post #5.

[professorchaos]

Government needs to be smaller because larger government is not sustainable. I heard a figure the other day that the Avg salary in the private sector is around 41K, and the avg salary in the federal government is 71K. Since the government does not create wealth, and gets all it's money from the people, those figures are not sustainable.

Not only that but also a larger government means less individual freedom. The federal government dominates our lives, touching on every aspect of it. From how much water can be used to flush a toilet to banning tritium flashlights to SOX, there is nothing the megalomaniacs in DC won't decide for us.

[Obsessed]

a larger government means less individual freedom.

Except when it doesn't, e.g., Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act . . .

Oh, and things like Social Security and Medicare allow the elderly a degree of freedom prior generations could only have dreamed of.

[Bertilak]

Except when it doesn't, e.g., Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act . . .

Those were corrections to past inequities, but did not add any new government agencies.


Oh, and things like Social Security and Medicare allow the elderly a degree of freedom prior generations could only have dreamed of.
That is debatable. Any decent, conservative, investment strategy would outperform those by a wide margin.

[luvmysuper]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-Thomas Jefferson

[Obsessed]

That is debatable. Any decent, conservative, investment strategy would outperform those by a wide margin.

Unless that decent, conservative strategy is thwarted by the type of unregulated conduct that almost toppled the financial markets recently. (Fortunately, catastrophe was averted by government intervention! :devil:)

[Bertilak]

Unless that decent, conservative strategy is thwarted by the type of unregulated conduct that almost toppled the financial markets recently. (Fortunately, catastrophe was averted by government intervention! :devil:)

You mean the government sponsored and protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies that pushed banks (by regulation and other "pressures") into granting questionable loans? That's what started the whole thing, remember?

[Obsessed]

You mean the government sponsored and protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies that pushed banks (by regulation and other "pressures") into granting questionable loans? That's what started the whole thing, remember?

No, I don't remember that. The idea that government regulation -- rather than the government's complete abdication of its responsibility to protect the integrity of the financial markets -- caused the crisis is in my view a serious perversion of reality.

But fortunately that's taking this thread a bit off topic, so I'm going to take a deep breath and go read about colognes.

[Big_Fuzzy]

It truly heartens me that there are so many people on here who can separate getting a benefit from the wider implications of it.

Federal governments around the world just keep on expanding. Even Australia is now putting in place internet censorship to protect the poor children. This crap disgusts me.

As someone who is embarking on university in a few weeks, it worries me that one of my economic text books was written by a member of the Labour party. The question is not what government should do, but rather why government should interfere in the first place.

This intellectual laziness of society is astounding. We have become so used to 'the government should do it' that we have ceased innovating and creating new ideas for problems as demanded by the market. A simple example of this is pirated music. Industry has simply left it to the government to enforce regulations, even though the government has no real incentive to do so. What if there was no government regulation? Could you imagine the HUGE market that would EXPLODE into existence as the industry spurs on new software and innovations to stop music being shared and pirated?

We can apply the same thing to healthcare. If there is enough market demand in a genuine market environment then solutions for medical illnesses will drastically become cheaper. This in turn makes insurance cheaper to this lowering costs all round and improving living standards, which then can also improve health and further lower the cost of insurance!

[ogopogo]

Just read the article. An accurate description of the situation, but is nothing new.

[xriley]

I think the article by John Mackey that Paulson linked to is spot on. My sentiments exactly.

The government is needed for some regulation, to what degree is debatable. Without some regulation we have anarchy. What we don't need is government control.

I don't think that the Obama-care plan really offers any solutions to any problems, it just expands the government to band-aid things. If someone can offer some insight, i am interested.

I'm in my mid 30's and self employed. I have a HSA because I work for it. It's one of the beautiful things about this country. And there's never been anything even resembling a silver spoon anywhere near my ass.

[Bertilak]

No, I don't remember that. The idea that government regulation -- rather than the government's complete abdication of its responsibility to protect the integrity of the financial markets -- caused the crisis is in my view a serious perversion of reality.

But fortunately that's taking this thread a bit off topic, so I'm going to take a deep breath and go read about colognes.

I'll grant you that the reality is a serious perversion.:tongue_sm

[Obsessed]

The government is needed for some regulation, to what degree is debatable. Without some regulation we have anarchy. What we don't need is government control.

To follow up on that, what ultimately bothers me about these discussions is that they present a false choice between "freedom" on the one hand and "government" or "regulation" on the other. We don't have to chose between Galt's Gulch or the next Five Year Plan. In reality, no one with an ounce of seriousness is proposing the latter (including President Obama, despite the "s o c i a l i s t" name-calling), and I think most people realize that the former would not turn out as great as it does in the pages of fiction.

(I try to stop posting in these threads, but you guys keep pulling me back in. It's your fault, not mine! :001_rolle)

[Bertilak]

We don't have to chose between Galt's Gulch or the next Five Year Plan. In reality, no one with an ounce of seriousness is proposing the latter...

Actually, I think it's a four year plan. The payoff to the unions (union members get the health care but don't pay the tax) is timed to expire just after the next election cycle. In this way the Democrats have leverage -- they can say that if they don't get re-elected the tax-free benefit for the unions will not get renewed. That will get the union organizers out there scaring up votes!

[jazzman]

...3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process. ...

Number 3 is probably the most destructive proposal of all. This is because certain states are willing to sell their souls to attract insurance companies. The result is that if the insurance company refuses to pay a legitimate claim, there is no effective state government or state court the customer can go to for justice. So if you allow an insurance company in the great state of East Whatever to sell insurance in your state, and there is no federal government agency to complain to, and your state government has no control over the company's fraud, and the East Whatever state government is happy to let the company rip you off because you can't vote in East Whatever, you will lose your house, your kids' college money, and your retirement because you came down with an illness that your insurance was supposed to cover. (But your premiums might go down by $50 per year, so that's OK:blink:.)

As for Number 4, how is the guy whose doctor amputated the wrong leg supposed to sue the doctor without a lawyer? Or is the lawyer supposed to work for Mr. Hoppy for free? On a more serious note, the malpractice insurance problem is a tiny sliver of the health care financing debacle. The anti-reform folks like to use it as a diversionary tactic, but it's really not that important, and most of what we hear about it is not true or grossly exaggerated.

[Bertilak]

Number 3 is probably the most destructive proposal of all. This is because certain states are willing to sell their souls to attract insurance companies.
Sheesh. This country is chock full of interstate commerce. Insurance is no different.


As for Number 4, how is the guy whose doctor amputated the wrong leg supposed to sue the doctor without a lawyer?
Who says you can't hire a lawyer and sue? Texas has enacted decent tort reform and it has done nothing to hurt us.

[professorchaos]

Number 3 is probably the most destructive proposal of all. This is because certain states are willing to sell their souls to attract insurance companies. The result is that if the insurance company refuses to pay a legitimate claim, there is no effective state government or state court the customer can go to for justice. So if you allow an insurance company in the great state of East Whatever to sell insurance in your state, and there is no federal government agency to complain to, and your state government has no control over the company's fraud, and the East Whatever state government is happy to let the company rip you off because you can't vote in East Whatever, you will lose your house, your kids' college money, and your retirement because you came down with an illness that your insurance was supposed to cover. (But your premiums might go down by $50 per year, so that's OK:blink:.)

Restricting competition does nothing to help the consumer. Quite the contrary, it helps businesses selling crap products. If I want to buy insurance from a Utah company because it has a plan that meets my needs at the best price, why not? Because some ginned up career hack on capital hill thinks he knows what I need better than me? Forget about it.


As for Number 4, how is the guy whose doctor amputated the wrong leg supposed to sue the doctor without a lawyer? Or is the lawyer supposed to work for Mr. Hoppy for free? On a more serious note, the malpractice insurance problem is a tiny sliver of the health care financing debacle. The anti-reform folks like to use it as a diversionary tactic, but it's really not that important, and most of what we hear about it is not true or grossly exaggerated.

Twaddle. Nothing about tort reform suggests that lawyers won't be able to sue doctors. Rather, lawyers won't get fabulously rich doing it. As for it being grossly exaggerated and unimportant well let's just say I wholly disagree with that assessment.

[richmondesi]

Who says you can't hire a lawyer and sue? Texas has enacted decent tort reform and it has done nothing to hurt us.

do you have any statistics demonstrating positive benefits of that, in terms of lowering costs? I'm not arguing, just curious.

[Tanksfurnutin]

Who says you can't hire a lawyer and sue? Texas has enacted decent tort reform and it has done nothing to hurt us.

I am also interested in knowing whether this has lowered insurance premiums and overall health care costs. Since it is one of the key Republican health care initiatives it would be a great to know if it has worked other places.

[Bertilak]

do you have any statistics demonstrating positive benefits of that, in terms of lowering costs? I'm not arguing, just curious.


I am also interested in knowing whether this has lowered insurance premiums and overall health care costs. Since it is one of the key Republican health care initiatives it would be a great to know if it has worked other places.

I honestly don't see any difference personally. Probably much too soon to tell. In any case my coverage is through the company I work for. I have heard no whining from my son and daughter who pay for their own health plans.

I read that Texas has been gaining doctors (and related professions) that other states are losing but this might also be an aftereffect of the fact that Texas is gaining population, to a great deal at the expense of the Northeast and California. The overall better business and tax environment have pulled us through the latest financial situation in pretty good shape.

[jazzman]

Restricting competition does nothing to help the consumer. Quite the contrary, it helps businesses selling crap products. If I want to buy insurance from a Utah company because it has a plan that meets my needs at the best price, why not? Because some ginned up career hack on capital hill thinks he knows what I need better than me? Forget about it.

I don't doubt that interstate competition will allow us to buy health insurance plans at lower prices and, probably, better-tailored to our needs. The problem I foresee comes when we try to file a claim--not a routine visit or a prescription, but a real financial disaster-sized claim. What are you going to do when the company turns you down, even though your claim clearly should be covered? The company's state insurance commission couldn't care less, the company's state's courts also couldn't care less, and the doctor and hospital in your state still want to be paid. There is no question in my mind that this will happen.

And the reason why an insurance company would incorporate in a state with a weak insurance commission and courts that don't care about the out-of-state plaintiff is so that it can get away with such misconduct.

The health insurance debate seems to be dominated, at least on one side, by people who haven't faced large, financially crippling bills. Some are young and healthy, and can't seem to imagine that changing. Others, like Dick Armey--former congressman and leader of anti-reform efforts--freely admit that they don't go to doctors. But any significant hospital stay would bankrupt most Americans who don't have insurance.

There are a lot of good alternatives to the current system, but both political parties seem to be failing us.

[tg16]

The majority of voters in the last presidential election voted for the candidate who said he would push for health care reform. The majority of House members passed a bill for health care reform. The majority of senators voted for a bill for health care reform. But we don't have health care reform. It looks like the "will of the people" is for health care reform, but the Party of No is successfully blocking it.

I believe the people stated they wanted health care reform. I also would like to see health care reform. I do not want to see the proposed health care reform passed and from the polls, the majority of the people do not want to see this particular reform pass.

In this case, the party of no is acting in line with the will of the people. When government quits representing the people and acts on its own, in disregard of what the people want, it is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In that case, it becomes a group of rulers instead of representatives.

However, to be accurate. The democrats had a super majority prior to the Massachusettes election, yet were unable to resolve the reform between the House and the Senate. The issues between the House and Senate dems killed the bill.

[arcman]

The Republicans have gained in the generic "Republican vs. Democrat" polls during this whole health care debate so apparently there is a good number of voters who don't see it your way and there is no apparent political cost to Republicans -- quite the contrary. Even in Massachusetts a Republican who explicitly campaigned on the issue won the election. Also, preventing unpopular legislation is not "tying up the Senate". It is the unwanted attempt to push through another unpopular government agency (not the same thing as "reforming health care") that is wasting the Senate's time. See, there is more than one way to look at this.

Also, my son was able to get a perfectly good health plan -- from Scott and White. He had several choices and picked one that covered just catastrophic situations, keeping the costs down. My daughter also had a Scott and White plan but for young women it is more expensive as there is the potential cost for pregnancy. It is nice that young men aren't forced to subsidize health plans for young women. So there is no conspiracy to deny health plans to people, at least here in Texas.Insurance companies already deny people, that fact has never been in question. They cherry-pick the young and healthy like your son and bar people with pre-existing conditions from even entering into the market because of the likelihood of having to pay out on a policy. You can stick with this model which has led to the price of insurance premiums ballooning at 3x the rate of inflation, and will price the cost of health insurance out of the range of the entire middle class within a decade. Or you can do what every other health care system in the entire developed world does and cover everyone, mandate everyone buy in for healthcare with the gov. subsidizing the poor, and end up spending less money (sometimes less than half) per capita, all the while boasting better health figures and higher customer satisfaction.


I am against healthcare reform because in it's current manifestation I don't think it will help anyone. Calling many/most of the current proposals in Congress reform requires no mean measure of intellectual contortionism.

I make no bones about it, I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my pocket, out of my bedroom and out of my body. As such, my idea of healthcare reform means less government, not more. Consequently, I would consider any of the following to be reform:

1. No Mandates - these "optional" services add an estimated 20%-50% to the cost of healthcare insurance. Since I will almost certainly never use them, I'd be better off being able to choose basic healthcare coverage. If the general population is able to opt-out of coverage then insurers have no option but to cherry-pick young healthy clients and restrict coverage on anyone who may ever possibly suffer from a medical ailment. This action directly leads to barring a large subset of the population from participating in any form of affordable health care. You can either screw people out of being able to pay for a doctor by banning them under pre-existing conditions or you can mandate a buy-in for everyone that can afford it. You can't have a solvent insurance system otherwise, it's not fiscally feasible.


2. Individuals who purchase their own health insurace should receive the same tax breaks companies get when purchasing for their employees.This sounds an awful lot like the partially-subsidized insurance market proposed in the current reform bill(s).


3. Prohibit states from preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines.The problem with this is the race-to-the-bottom effect that we have already seen with credit card companies once they were allowed to sell credit across state lines. They set up camp in the most lax state (North Dakota) and now practice usury in the form of 30% interest credit, which would probably be illegal in your state except for this short-circuiting of consumer protections in the form of commerce across state lines. In North Dakota's case, .2% of the US population gets to decide the credit card rates of the entire nation. Which isn't exactly democratic.


4. Tort Reform - We all pay higher premiums as a result of doctors paying higher insurance fees. I don't have anything against true victims getting recompense for injuries. But I don't think lawyers (some, by no means all) should be enriched in the process. While there's nothing wrong with tort reform it's pretty much meaningless to bring it up in health reform in regards to cost. The CBO has already determined that enacting tort reform would bring around less than a 1% reduction in health care spending. I mean, you can do it, but it's absurdly short of substantive.


5. Transparent healthcare costs.Competition is something that is good and invigorating for most all of the different types of health care systems the world practices, so I see no issue with this.


Name an abuse and I'll see if it sounds like it needs regulation, or if it is already the result of existing over-regulation (or tax codes).

If the first impulse to solving a problem is by increased regulation then I think that impulse needs to be checked and some clearer thinking applied. Earlier in this thread I posted a link to John Mackey's proposals (which, as I have noted, are similar to what Prof Chaos listed). See my post #13 or Google if really interested.Banning people from participating in private care because they have a pre-existing condition sounds abusive to me! It's causing a lot of people to be stuck in dead-end jobs because they can't get coverage anywhere else. A commercially-mandated serfdom.

Then there is rescission, where people who suddenly develop an expensive illness, such as say cancer, are dropped by the insurers because, and I am not kidding here, they say there was a failure to report a previous condition of acne. There is currently nothing stopping insurance companies from dropping anyone they want to because of some supposed fudge made by the policy holder on some very ambiguous paperwork, or just lying outright while the patient is too sick to fight back. I mean, a bunch of heads of insurance companies were brought before a government panel after a bunch of these outrages were uncovered and were asked "Would you at least consider ceasing the rescission of policy holders except in clear cases of fraud?" They all replied, "No."
The idea that the insurance industry needs less regulation is positively ludicrous when you can point to literally thousands of examples of the industry overtly screwing people over.

[Bertilak]

all kinds of stuff...

All these issues can be addressed without a new government agency. They are all addressed in the comments by John Mackey I linked to above (and by many others over the years).

The question is NOT do we or do we not need health care reform, it's do we or do we not want the back-door social-ism Obama-Pelosi-Reid are trying to jamb down the throats of an unwilling populace.

If they really cared about your health would they be asking the us to subsidize the unions? -- You do know the plan they have now grants union members a pass on the taxes to pay for this, right? And you do know that subsidy runs out just in time for it to be used as an issue in the next election cycle? This is all a huge power grab and has almost nothing to do with health care reform.

Heck -- Even Newfoundland's Prime Minister is coming to the USA for heart surgery because there are no good options for him in Canada's government-run health care system!

[richmondesi]

The reason I asked is because I was told by people who should know that it hasn't done anything at all to lower costs in Texas. However, I don't have any data backing up or refuting that claim.

Texas is gaining a lot of people (from all professions) from other areas, so it's really hard to determine why doctors might be coming here.

[aodenkou]

If a national health care system is so good why is the Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams coming to the US for heart surgery? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700

I have an implanted defibrillator, and the battery was getting low. I called a physician on Monday, had an appointment on Thursday and Friday at 10 am I was in surgery getting a new defibrillator. I am sitting at home starting to feel better and doing a bit of reading on the web.

I do not anticipate any problem with the insurance paying for the procedure, I will pay by deductable and go on with life. At this point I don't have to fly to another country to have the surgery done that I need, unlike Danny Williams.

[82R100]

If a national health care system is so good why is the Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams coming to the US for heart surgery? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700

I have an implanted defibrillator, and the battery was getting low. I called a physician on Monday, had an appointment on Thursday and Friday at 10 am I was in surgery getting a new defibrillator. I am sitting at home starting to feel better and doing a bit of reading on the web.

I do not anticipate any problem with the insurance paying for the procedure, I will pay by deductable and go on with life. At this point I don't have to fly to another country to have the surgery done that I need, unlike Danny Williams.

It's nice that you're well covered. No one's proposing a Canada style national health care system.

- Chris

[Bertilak]

The reason I asked is because I was told by people who should know that it hasn't done anything at all to lower costs in Texas. However, I don't have any data backing up or refuting that claim.

I don't think that's the kind of thing that has a direct, immediate, effect on things, like a light switch. It's more like a garden -- you weed, water and fertilize. Then you don't use a clock to measure progress but a calendar. It's all about establishing a friendly environment for doing business. Over the months and years things improve.


Texas is gaining a lot of people (from all professions) from other areas, so it's really hard to determine why doctors might be coming here.
Probably for the same reason so many others are coming here -- a friendly environment for doing business.

Every family needs a breadwinner with a job. Be that a salaried job or one's own business everyone wants the business they are in to do well.

[Bertilak]

It's nice that you're well covered. No one's proposing a Canada style national health care system.

I'm sure there are differences but they both walk like ducks and quack like ducks. Maybe one's a Mallard and the other a Teal, but they're both government run ducks.

[Zenas]

Number 3 is probably the most destructive proposal of all. This is because certain states are willing to sell their souls to attract insurance companies. The result is that if the insurance company refuses to pay a legitimate claim, there is no effective state government or state court the customer can go to for justice. So if you allow an insurance company in the great state of East Whatever to sell insurance in your state, and there is no federal government agency to complain to, and your state government has no control over the company's fraud, and the East Whatever state government is happy to let the company rip you off because you can't vote in East Whatever, you will lose your house, your kids' college money, and your retirement because you came down with an illness that your insurance was supposed to cover. (But your premiums might go down by $50 per year, so that's OK:blink:.)

This is simply not true in the slightest. No offense, but you got the law wrong in so many places I really don't know where to start.

First, allowing insurance to compete across state lines has nothing to do with the legal redress given those aggrieved. What it does do is allow insurance companies to spread their risk pools, turn a greater investment profit, and have more liquid assets to pay insurance claims out. A rudimentary understanding of how insurance functions bears this out.

Next, you assume that Company A operating in State A, but insuring X in State B could refuse to pay X and State A would be the only place he could get relief. Wrong.

This question turns on the conflict of laws statute of State B. A conflcit of laws statute is a rule that decides who's law governs a particular dispute. In this case, would State A or State B's law govern? Well, if State B followed the lex loci contractus (law of the place of contract) approach, then State B's law would apply. Even if they followed the law of the place of performance approach, State B's law would still apply.

At any rate, State B, not the foreign State A, would be the one who would control whether X would recover or not. Do you think State B legislators are going to pass laws prohibiting their own citizens from recovering against insurance companies that don't pay out?

Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines will only foster lower premiums because of the nature of competition, and because of larger risk pools with lower percentages of payouts and higher numbers of premium payments. Your assertion that it will subject citizens to the evil whims of alien States is just not true. As in the hypothetical, State A cannot deny X access to the courts or a legal remedy, because it would be State B's laws that govern. I hope that helps clear some of your fears up.



As for Number 4, how is the guy whose doctor amputated the wrong leg supposed to sue the doctor without a lawyer? Or is the lawyer supposed to work for Mr. Hoppy for free? On a more serious note, the malpractice insurance problem is a tiny sliver of the health care financing debacle. The anti-reform folks like to use it as a diversionary tactic, but it's really not that important, and most of what we hear about it is not true or grossly exaggerated.

Lawyers in those cases actually work on a contingency fee basis. If they lose, yes, they do work for free. If they win, they take a certain amount out of the judgment awarded, in addition to their reasonable costs of litigation (you can actually get the other side to pay this sometimes.)

Where are you getting your facts about malpractice insurance? Malpractice insurance is a large sinkhole where medical costs get funneled. It is not "if" a doctor will be sued, it's when. Even the best get sued, many times. You don't have to actually have a claim to sue someone, you just have to pay the filing fee. Everytime someone files, the insurance company, who has agreed to defend the claim, has to hire someone like the people I work for to take the time and go get the claim thrown out or, if plausible, litigate against it.
all those costs are built in to what you pay in medical fees.

No one is saying those who have had the wrong leg amputated don't deserve a remedy. What people are saying is that there shouldn't be insanely high damage rewards in order to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance and, in turn, medical costs.

Cheers!

[PaulUK]

I am conscious of the sensitivities of expressing a view on how another nation orders its affairs, and therefore I offer no personal opinion; but this article on the BBC news site I found interesting. It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it; and attempts to analyse the psychology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm


Ooooh. never comment on the way another (democratically-elected) nation runs its affairs.:ohmy:

[arcman]

All these issues can be addressed without a new government agency. They are all addressed in the comments by John Mackey I linked to above (and by many others over the years).

The question is NOT do we or do we not need health care reform, it's do we or do we not want the back-door social-ism Obama-Pelosi-Reid are trying to jamb down the throats of an unwilling populace.

If they really cared about your health would they be asking the us to subsidize the unions? -- You do know the plan they have now grants union members a pass on the taxes to pay for this, right? And you do know that subsidy runs out just in time for it to be used as an issue in the next election cycle? This is all a huge power grab and has almost nothing to do with health care reform.

Heck -- Even Canada's Prime Minister is coming to the USA for heart surgery because there are no good options for him in Canada's government-run health care system!Jeez dude, if you're just going to delete my entire conversation and not actually respond to anything, don't even bother with the quote button next time.

You cannot seriously call anything passed as reform if you don't stop the bans on pre-existing conditions. Americans expect at least that much from any supposed reforms to blatantly abusive insurance practices. The only way to stop that ban is to mandate insurance, and if you're going to mandate insurance you have to subsidize the lower to middle class. Failing at any of these things means you continue to tell people desperate to purchase insurance, who need medical attention probably more than anyone else, "Nope, sorry, you're not allowed to participate in the market."

I'm going to reiterate that. The MAJOR points of the reforms in both the house and senate are to ensure that EVERYONE has access to PRIVATE health insurance. The GOP was wrong to level the spectre of "social-ism" back when social security was introduced, wrong when they did it when medicare was introduced, and just as wrong today. The only thing you could even call social-istic about the bill was the public option, which even if it could pass (it won't) accounted for only a sliver of the population. Instead it was replaced non-profit private co-ops in the insurance exchange, which is functionally the same thing.

We CANNOT reform our system if we refuse to deal with the uninsured. The cost of dealing with the uninsured is breaking the backs of the providers, in turn raising premiums. If we don't at least get to the point where we ensure everyone has access to care we can't take the next necessary steps of reducing cost. There's more than this to do down the road and make no mistake, it's not going away. Keep in mind, the administration brought the associations of doctors, hospitals, the AMA, the drug companies, and the private insurers all to the table and got them to AGREE to the proposals in the bill. Such a thing has not happened before, it certainly didn't happen with Hillary's run, so even if the measures ultimately fail in the legislature, don't expect this thing to die out like it did in the 90's. The industry already knows it's going to have to make these changes down the line, at some point the No's of the GOP aren't going to be able to hold it back.

[hypo_style]

I have to say that I had a first-hand experience with the Canadian healthcare system, and it out worked pretty well for me.

My wife and I vacationed in Halifax, NS for a week in 2008, and during our stay I developed an infection that required emergency medical care. I found an emergency clinic, walked in, saw a Doctor without having to wait more than 5 minutes, was diagnosed, given a prescription and was out the door in not more than half an hour. The clinic visit cost me $60 (I think only because I was a foreign resident), which is only slightly more than my typical US copay ($40), even though I couldn't use my US health care plan coverage in Canada. I was shocked to find that the prescription was very affordable to fill, and in a day or so I was on my way to recovery. It was an amazing experience for me, a breath of fresh air compared to what I am used to in my home country.

In contrast, my experiences visiting emergency rooms in the US have invariably been nightmares. Just the month before that vacation, I had to visit an emergency room in Manhattan for an eye infection. The visit took some six hours (most of it waiting for an attending nurse practitioner to get around to attending to me) and finally resulted in competent but jury-rigged treatment in a hallway which happened to be free at that moment. It was a miserable, exhausting experience. In the weeks that followed, I was sent multiple bills from different health care companies charging for various components of my visit to this one emergency room. I could not fathom how so many companies could be owed payment for a visit to one facility. It was very expensive and very dispiriting.

And I have health care coverage. I have a decent (by US standards) health care plan. I am lucky.

So, what are my options? I cannot change my health care plan, because it is the only one offered by my employer, and I cannot afford an independently-provided alternative, even at the same level of coverage, because the premiums are so much higher (never mind being able to afford a better health care plan).

It seems to me that, when money is no object, you can get fantastic care in this country. Maybe even the best care in the world. Perhaps that is why the Newfoundland Premier elected to fly here, presumably at his own expense (I assume he is not a pauper). But when it comes to more regular treatment and preventive care, I've found there is an awful lot to be desired. As I see it, I personally have only one choice: mediocre health care available through my employer, or I take my chances without health coverage. I'm not a betting man, so this is really no choice at all.

I know a great many esteemed members of this forum feel very differently, but it is my personal opinion that the notion that the free market (when left alone) is a well-oiled & self-correcting system that almost always works out for the best interests of its consumers is as much of a fiction as the notion that Communism or Soc***ism are truly viable alternatives to Capitalism.

(or, for that matter, as much of a fiction as the notion that this country is on the verge of becoming some Soc***ist state)

[Bertilak]

You cannot seriously call anything passed as reform if you don't stop the bans on pre-existing conditions.

So, would you expect an insurance company to give you fire insurance after your house burned? Do you call that a "ban on pre-existing fire conditions?"

People have no more right to demand health care than they do to demand food and shelter. We don't destroy the housing market just because some people can't afford mortgages. OK, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae tried this but I think the market will recover. A bad example that should have been a good example!

To address your specific issue:

Let's separate establishing a functional health care system from charity (or welfare, if you must). If we were allowed to actually own our own health care plans and could maintain them from one job to another or between jobs, or self employment, etc. then there would be many fewer "pre-existing condition" cases to deal with and they would be manageable under some sort of welfare system. That's just one aspect of a solution. Another aspect is to allow individuals the same tax credit when paying for health insurance as employers are given for the same payments. That would encourage people to get coverage *before* their house burned down - I mean before they developed a long-term disease.

EDIT: The tax situation would address Hypo's situation with more expensive private insurance than employer-provided insurance. That's *why* employer provided insurance is cheaper.

[Zenas]

Arcman,

Respectfully, your point is well-taken. There has to be a solution to providing care to people with pre-existing conditions. However, what you're describing and what I have heard most proponents speak of is not insurance. It's requiring an insurance company to pay to care for those with pre-existing conditions. That's not insurance, that's someone else simply paying your bills for you.

Insurance is an agreement between two parties to indemnify one against a possible, but not certain, future risk in exchange for payments in the form of premiums. Insurance companies remain solvent because, statistically, a vast majority of those paying premiums never collect because the future risk doesn't occur or occurs very infrequently. They are able to invest all of these premiums, make even more money, and have a large pool of liquid assets with which to pay out claims. Those who are collecting major medical benefits have never and will neverp ay enough to the insurance company to "pay it back". Everyone else is paying, along with the interest the company makes of off those premiums from those who don't collect.

Pre-existing conditions are obviously excluded from what I described and what is understood to be insurance. Include pre-existing conditions and you stop insuring people from possible future risks, and you start paying for current losses with no possibility of collecting premiums that will accrue interest and help pay for a loss in the future. Those with pre-existing conditions won't be paying in enough to cover what they'll be taking out, they won't ever have a chance to. What they'll pay in will be a fraction of what they are recieving. With medical costs as they are, that's not a recipie for an insurance company to remain solvent and for the rest of us to recieve proper care. In order to cover this, premiums for the rest of us would have to rise to pay for the drastically increased amount of people who aren't "paying their way".

Something that will help is driving down medical costs by reducing the overhead for doctors to practice medicine, while still compensating them in a way to attract the most talented and able individuals to the profession. Reforming medical malpractice to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums is one way to do this.

I'm not disagreeing that people need help. What I do disagree with is the way Obama et al want to go about it. I see great potential for misuse of government healthcare, as is with anything in which the government is involved. Thus why I am a libertarian. :thumbup:

I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of subsidizing the health of people who refuse to work. I realize there are people out there in a tight spot. I also realize that the government is inept and there are those who are willing to work hard at being lazy, manipulate the system, and make a lower-middle class salary doing literally nothing. In my time with a local non-profit law firm, I reviewed applications of clients where a single mother with two children and no job made more than my wife does working as a receptionist in our law firm. (We pay well.) I also know others who collect disability payments but who do work on a cash-only basis. Abuses happen and the government is too large and the quality of service is too poor to deal with it, or even really care.

[richmondesi]

I don't think that's the kind of thing that has a direct, immediate, effect on things, like a light switch. It's more like a garden -- you weed, water and fertilize. Then you don't use a clock to measure progress but a calendar. It's all about establishing a friendly environment for doing business. Over the months and years things improve.

Wouldn't you agree that something that shows actual benefits is what's needed though? Tort reform came to Texas in '03, would you not say that we are "calendar" territory by now?



Probably for the same reason so many others are coming here -- a friendly environment for doing business.

Every family needs a breadwinner with a job. Be that a salaried job or one's own business everyone wants the business they are in to do well.

You think Texas is a friendlier environment for doing business today than it was before the recent enacting of the Texas Franchise/Margin tax? I would find that hard to believe.

[mparker762]

They cherry-pick the young and healthy like your son and bar people with pre-existing conditions from even entering into the market because of the likelihood of having to pay out on a policy. You can stick with this model which has led to the price of insurance premiums ballooning at 3x the rate of inflation...

I'm not sure why this cherry-picking has led to higher premiums. What is the mechanism by which this happens? It's obvious that premiums have been going up, I'm just not sure why it must be the cherry-picking that is responsible.



If the general population is able to opt-out of coverage then insurers have no option but to cherry-pick young healthy clients and restrict coverage on anyone who may ever possibly suffer from a medical ailment. This action directly leads to barring a large subset of the population from participating in any form of affordable health care.

You're overstating the case considerably here. The insurance companies obviously don't "restrict coverage on anyone who may ever possibly suffer from a medical ailment", because that's everybody. They do restrict coverage for people with specific a priori conditions that they know with high confidence that they will have to pay out more than they will recoup. And they may refuse to sell insurance to potential customers that they believe will claim more in benefits than they will ever pay out, or that are unable to pay at all. These are cost-saving measures after all, and I'm uncertain how such cost-saving measures inexorably lead to higher premiums as you seem to imply.

It seems reasonable for a law that says that an insurance company may not deny coverage to a high-risk customer as long as the customer is capable of paying the premiums - but for a 5-pack-a-day diabetic motorcycle rider that premium might be quite high. I do think it's unfair to demand that the other customers of that insurance company must pay higher rates to subsidize that high-risk customer's lifestyle, and I think that doing so reduces the incentives to that customer to lower his risk level in order to lower his premium. OTOH simply denying him any sort of coverage also reduces his incentive to lower his risk, since a binary signal carries less information and provides less feedback than an analog one. But even a simply binary signal (insurable/uninsurable) provides more corrective incentive than some sort of mandated standardized price-controlled coverage.

I will go further - I believe that the group policies offered by major employers are also distorting the market considerably, and blurring the true costs of insurance and health care in general for a large portion of the population, and I would not at all mind if the federal gov't passed a law discouraging such policies. Personal anecdote: I recently quit my job and joined with a startup, losing my group coverage in the process. I was denied coverage by multiple insurers because of my weight, which was generally acclaimed to be roughly 60lbs higher than they would even begin to consider insuring. This sent me on a diet and I lost those pounds over the course of about 6 months. All those years I was on a group policy I never worried about it. Had I been able to get on some moderately-priced federally-defined and subsidized plan I would have also never worried about it.



...boasting better health figures and higher customer satisfaction...

If better figures are important then there are ways of nudging the numbers. Simply not counting infants as "alive" until they've left the hospital would provide a nice boost to the life expectancy and infant mortality numbers, for example. And if you want to boost the numbers for those who have affordable health care, you can simply add in the numbers who can afford a health plan but choose not to (since by their own calculation they have decided that paying out of pocket is affordable), and boost this number even higher if you count the people who have access to unpaid emergency care.

[Bertilak]

Wouldn't you agree that something that shows actual benefits is what's needed though? Tort reform came to Texas in '03, would you not say that we are "calendar" territory by now?

Yes, and we do see that we have plenty of doctors, which is not true in all states.


You think Texas is a friendlier environment for doing business today than it was before the recent enacting of the Texas Franchise/Margin tax? I would find that hard to believe.
I know nothing of that, but in general Texas is considered a business friendly place. Forbes lists it as number 2 behind Virginia:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/15/best-states-business_cz_kb_0815beststates.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/9/06beststates_all_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=35000

[mparker762]

Wouldn't you agree that something that shows actual benefits is what's needed though? Tort reform came to Texas in '03, would you not say that we are "calendar" territory by now.

Maybe the feds need to mandate comparable tort reform across the entire US? Otherwise plaintiffs can cherry-pick the jurisdiction and still get those huge settlements.

[richmondesi]

One thing that I find interesting is that my private health insurance provider (Unicare) recently left Texas... You'd think that tort reform combined with the friendly environment would have led to the health insurance companies flocking here, right?

[Tanksfurnutin]

Yes, and we do see that we have plenty of doctors, which is not true in all states.

I don't understand how having plenty of doctors makes tort reform a success at lowering costs. Wouldn't doctors come there based on the ability to make more profit.

[Zenas]

I'd be interested in learning why they left. Mind you, not just speculation, but the real reasons why they pulled out after tort reform.

[Zenas]

I don't understand how having plenty of doctors makes tort reform a success at lowering costs. Wouldn't doctors come there based on the ability to make more profit.

It's hypothetical, which is what everyone is dealing with here, even the proponents of the current reform proposal.

[richmondesi]

I'd be interested in learning why they left. Mind you, not just speculation, but the real reasons why they pulled out after tort reform.

They just said it was due to competitive pressures... <shrug>

[PaulUK]

I'll try not to offend our transatlantic cousins and I certainly won't tell you what's in your best interests. That's for you to decide. I will say that:

1. As a Brit I appreciate the independence of the BBC. I don't always agree with it. Sometimes it is a bit sensationalist but it does try to be politically independent

2. as a health care professional I never cease to be impressed at some of the phenomenal medical facilities you have in the US. Whilst we have to beg our Chief executive to upgrade some of our dated equipment it seems that some of your premier medical centres have unlimited resources. Patients can have access to state of the art surgery within days of an outpatient appointment whilst I have to wait a few weeks for a (non-urgent) investigation and then have to fit them in to my allocated operating session -with little or no leeway as to the amount of theatre time I am allocated. Undoubtedly patients with good health insurance have a better service in the USA than NHS patients have in the UK.

3. as a health care professional I never cease to be shocked at the way you treat patients with no insurance, patients with long-term illness whose insurance runs out and patients with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain medical insurance.

I think our so......ed system is in need of change. Currently our Government want us to provide a US-style state of the art high-tech medical service for all ...paid for out of general taxation. As alluded to in some of the posts above that is not really tenable. The people who make the greatest use of the NHS are by and large those individuals who contribute the least in taxation. I suspect a 2 tier system (similar to that in Australia) is probably more fair. Those who work pay high insurance premiums and have access to an excellent service. Those who don't work have access to a safety net where necessary (but rationed) medical treatment takes place. I really don't think our economy can manage an all-encompassing "free" health care system. Nor can yours.

Unfortunately no political party in the UK would ever dare suggest such a radical change to the NHS.

[Zenas]

If they left because the competition was too stiff, and I assume that's what you mean, would that mean that tort reform drew more, lower cost options that they could not or were not willing to compete with?

[Tanksfurnutin]

It's hypothetical, which is what everyone is dealing with here, even the proponents of the current reform proposal.

I thought it wouldn't be hypothetical still, since Texas has had tort reform for awhile now.

[Zenas]

I'll try not to offend our transatlantic cousins and I certainly won't tell you what's in your best interests. That's for you to decide. I will say that:

1. As a Brit I appreciate the independence of the BBC. I don't always agree with it. Sometimes it is a bit sensationalist but it does try to be politically independent

2. as a health care professional I never cease to be impressed at some of the phenomenal medical facilities you have in the US. Whilst we have to beg our Chief executive to upgrade some of our dated equipment it seems that some of your premier medical centres have unlimited resources. Patients can have access to state of the art surgery within days of an outpatient appointment whilst I have to wait a few weeks for a (non-urgent) investigation and then have to fit them in to my allocated operating session -with little or no leeway as to the amount of theatre time I am allocated. Undoubtedly patients with good health insurance have a better service in the USA than NHS patients have in the UK.

3. as a health care professional I never cease to be shocked at the way you treat patients with no insurance, patients with long-term illness whose insurance runs out and patients with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain medical insurance.

I think our so......ed system is in need of change. Currently our Government want us to provide a US-style state of the art high-tech medical service for all ...paid for out of general taxation. As alluded to in some of the posts above that is not really tenable. The people who make the greatest use of the NHS are by and large those individuals who contribute the least in taxation. I suspect a 2 tier system (similar to that in Australia) is probably more fair. Those who work pay high insurance premiums and have access to an excellent service. Those who don't work have access to a safety net where necessary (but rationed) medical treatment takes place. I really don't think our economy can manage an all-encompassing "free" health care system. Nor can yours.

Unfortunately no political party in the UK would ever dare suggest such a radical change to the NHS.

I think it's obvious there are problems with both systems. However, it seems current proponents would rather us have England's problems rather than the U.S.'s problems. We're just trading out some for others, not solving any, which is why I'm opposed to all of this. It's not really helping, only changing.

[Bertilak]

If they left because the competition was too stiff, and I assume that's what you mean, would that mean that tort reform drew more, lower cost options that they could not or were not willing to compete with?

Could be. In a free market there are winners and losers. All for the best of the consumer.

[Zenas]

Pre-existing conditions aside, I don't know how some folks claim they cannot afford insurance but are employed. My wife and I were shopping around yesterday and are able to insure her, myself, and my son with very good health insurance for a little over $300 a month. Maternity kicks in after 9-months.

Speaking of which, don't think that I am not acutely aware of the pre-existing condition problem. Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. If my wife were to quit her job and go off the work insurance, but was pregnant at the time, we'd be in the hole $30,000 because any insurance we'd buy wouldn't cover it. It stinks, and I know how much, but I don't see an answer in Obama's plan that's feasible to provide quality care and eliminate said problem. I'm not willing to buy my own short-term comfort in exchange for long-term problems.

[aodenkou]

It's nice that you're well covered. No one's proposing a Canada style national health care system.

- Chris

It seems to me that is really what is trying to be done here in the US. While rhetoric says - keep your current health care. The quotes by major players in the health care reform say just the opposite - they are in favor of a one payer system. You can start with Pres Obama down..... you can hear it in their own words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_SGGcJu_c&feature=related Or how about Bary Frank saying he is in favor of single payer plan and the best way is to get something in place now and then get the single player later http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&feature=related Or Kathleen Sebelius saying I'm for a single payer system - eventually http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOyNCnN3NRg&feature=PlayList&p=1E8D904F256ADC0E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37 Or how about Rep John Conyers points out what he thinks of reading a bill put forth before you vote on said bill. I don't have two lawyers to explain the bill to me - but then again I think any bill should be presented in a format that a reasonably well educated person could read and understand. Clearly this is not the case with the health care bill.

Oh by the way - let me be clear - my point is that the PM up in Canada is coming to the US for heart surgery. Where do we go 10 or 20 years from now when clearly prominent politicians are in favor of a single payer health care system - and that's what they hope for?

[richmondesi]

If they left because the competition was too stiff, and I assume that's what you mean, would that mean that tort reform drew more, lower cost options that they could not or were not willing to compete with?

What I suspect is happening is that the bigger companies just squeezed them out, not that they were pushed out by an influx of competitors because I was "switched" to the biggest provider in the area

[Zenas]

To be clear, reasonably well-educated lawyers can't read some of the legislation that comes out. A lot of it is very poorly and lazily written. Some of it is intentional, to tax your will so you don't want to read it.

[richmondesi]

Could be. In a free market there are winners and losers. All for the best of the consumer.

In this case, I was switched to a provider who was seriously more expensive than what I had. Win:thumbup:

[Zenas]

What I suspect is happening is that the bigger companies just squeezed them out, not that they were pushed out by an influx of competitors because I was "switched" to the biggest provider in the area

Which makes sense because they would benefit the most with their risk pool being the largest and their payouts dropping. Hypothetically, they were collecting $200 and paying out $150. Now they are collecting $200 and paying out $75. Obviously, they are able to undercut a smaller company with a smaller risk pool and, in turn, less profit. In poker terms, they have enough to simply buy the pot.

[aodenkou]

I don't understand how having plenty of doctors makes tort reform a success at lowering costs. Wouldn't doctors come there based on the ability to make more profit.

I have a cousin who is an OBGYN, he told me about 10 or 15 years ago that his malpractice insurance was $250,000 per year. So even before he opens his door Jan 1 he is in debt $250,000 not to mention all of the other fixed costs he will have to pay. Don't think having a lower insurance rate could help him cut down his overhead and keep his fees down? I have no idea what his insurance cost is today, but I'll bet it's higher now than it was then.

[Zenas]

In this case, I was switched to a provider who was seriously more expensive than what I had. Win:thumbup:

What happened to you is what is called "capturing the benefit". It happens where a benefit that is meant to be conferred to one person is captured by another in the form of increased profits.

I would shop around if I were you. There's probably someone out there who's letting some of the benefit through to compete with the larger company.

[Zenas]

I have a cousin who is an OBGYN, he told me about 10 or 15 years ago that his malpractice insurance was $250,000 per year. So even before he opens his door Jan 1 he is in debt $250,000 not to mention all of the other fixed costs he will have to pay. Don't think having a lower insurance rate could help him cut down his overhead and keep his fees down? I have no idea what his insurance cost is today, but I'll bet it's higher now than it was then.

That's the theory I would prefer over essentially forcing the rest of us to subsidize the health of everyone who doesn't have insurance or has a pre-existing condition.

[richmondesi]

What happened to you is what is called "capturing the benefit". It happens where a benefit that is meant to be conferred to one person is captured by another in the form of increased profits.

I would shop around if I were you. There's probably someone out there who's letting some of the benefit through to compete with the larger company.

I think you just hit on why tort reform isn't helping lower healthcare costs in Texas, and kind of my point :001_smile

[aodenkou]

I'll try not to offend our transatlantic cousins and I certainly won't tell you what's in your best interests. That's for you to decide. I will say that:
<snip>

2. as a health care professional I never cease to be impressed at some of the phenomenal medical facilities you have in the US. Whilst we have to beg our Chief executive to upgrade some of our dated equipment it seems that some of your premier medical centres have unlimited resources. Patients can have access to state of the art surgery within days of an outpatient appointment whilst I have to wait a few weeks for a (non-urgent) investigation and then have to fit them in to my allocated operating session -with little or no leeway as to the amount of theatre time I am allocated. Undoubtedly patients with good health insurance have a better service in the USA than NHS patients have in the UK. <snip>

I think this is truly the crux of the matter here. I have been in a UK hospital and was on the receiving end of the NHS treatment in a London hospital. I can assure you I was ready to kiss the ground of the US when I got back home. Yes, I did survive my problem in the UK - but I did call for a priest because of the standard of care I received. If anyone in the US would have experienced the things I did in a US hospital I think their call would have been to a lawyer rather than a priest.

Even in our small towns we have a standard of care that is just phenomenal. I am not aware of any small town hospital that does not have an ER (causality) or an OBGYN. Yet when my son was at the University of Kent, Canterbury was planing on cutting the ER and not provide service for delivery. They would have to go to London for that. I am not sure if that ever came to pass but can you imagine cutting the ER from a hospital in a city the size of Canterbury? (43,432 as of 2001). In my home town we have two hospitals and our population is 59,614 Oh and according to their web site 92% of patients were treated within 18 weeks - that does not sound very good to me......

I am going to try very hard to avoid this topic as it appears there are two opposing views and I am rather set in my view.

[richmondesi]

My town doesn't have an OBGYN

[Zenas]

I think you just hit on why tort reform isn't helping lower healthcare costs in Texas, and kind of my point :001_smile

Not necessarily so though. You're ignoring what I said regarding competitors. While who you currently have is capturing the benefit, other companies are free to pass it on in the form of lower premiums to attract customers away from the big company. You just have to shop around. :thumbup1:

[Confuzius]

Pre-existing conditions aside, I don't know how some folks claim they cannot afford insurance but are employed. My wife and I were shopping around yesterday and are able to insure her, myself, and my son with very good health insurance for a little over $300 a month. Maternity kicks in after 9-months.


Just to put this into perspective, I'm in Canada, I've got private insurance through work that costs $80/month for me and my girlfriend (after living with me for a year) and any kids if we had any. This covers stuff above and beyond my government insurance. I get private rooms in hospitals, and all sorts of private clinic options if needed, It covers any and all expedited lab tests, along with weird perks like massage, acupuncture, podiatry etc. It also covers 90% of all my drug costs, and full non-cosmetic dental. It also includes loss of limb/life insurance, and covers me through blue cross if I travel outside the country.

My girlfriend is a full time student, we could swing an extra $80/month if needed (We don't, the company pays it now). $300 not so much.

[richmondesi]

Not necessarily so though. You're ignoring what I said regarding competitors. While who you currently have is capturing the benefit, other companies are free to pass it on in the form of lower premiums to attract customers away from the big company. You just have to shop around. :thumbup1:

Do you really think that the entire state of Texas is just blindly paying whatever bill is presented? I didn't ignore anything. In '03 tort reform was passed in Texas and healthcare costs have not gone down for the state. It appears that tort reform has failed us Interesting Blog (http://threewisemenblog.com/2009/12/19/texas-tort-reform-failure/).

The New Yorker also had an interesting article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande) about Tort reform. :001_smile

The point I'm making is that Tort Reform certainly does not APPEAR to be the answer. I like the idea, but it's not saving us any money. That's my only point.

[Zenas]

In short, yes. Have you looked at other companies and everyone is offering the same price for the same type of care?

[richmondesi]

In short, yes. Have you looked at other companies and everyone is offering the same price for the same type of care?

No, I'm stupid :001_smile

[Zenas]

The day is mine! :laugh:

[richmondesi]

The day is mine! :laugh:

psst... I really did, though :wink2:

[Zenas]

If the case is that the benefits are being captured, then something needs to be done to foster competition.

[richmondesi]

If the case is that the benefits are being captured, then something needs to be done to foster competition.

Considering we have Tort Reform and the second rated state in terms of being "business friendly", what kind of proposals would you recommend?

[Zenas]

It may not be the insurance companies capturing the benefit, it may be the hospitals and doctors.

[richmondesi]

It may not be the insurance companies capturing the benefit, it may be the hospitals and doctors.

By George... :thumbup:

FWIW, since Tort Reform was enacted, health insurance premiums have increased at double the national average...

[richmondesi]

FWIW, I've always been a Libertarian kind of guy. However, there came a time that I started really challenging my thinking on a lot of things... I don't have the answer, but I can tell pretty definitively that Tort Reform isn't going to be a big part of it. Government isn't always a bad thing. I'm turning into an advocate of increased regulation (but certainly not in favor of government provided services).

[82R100]

Oh by the way - let me be clear - my point is that the PM up in Canada is coming to the US for heart surgery. Where do we go 10 or 20 years from now when clearly prominent politicians are in favor of a single payer health care system - and that's what they hope for?

By the way, are you on Medicare yet?

- Chris

[jazzman]

Pre-existing conditions aside, I don't know how some folks claim they cannot afford insurance but are employed. My wife and I were shopping around yesterday and are able to insure her, myself, and my son with very good health insurance for a little over $300 a month. Maternity kicks in after 9-months.

Speaking of which, don't think that I am not acutely aware of the pre-existing condition problem. Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. If my wife were to quit her job and go off the work insurance, but was pregnant at the time, we'd be in the hole $30,000 because any insurance we'd buy wouldn't cover it. It stinks, and I know how much, but I don't see an answer in Obama's plan that's feasible to provide quality care and eliminate said problem. I'm not willing to buy my own short-term comfort in exchange for long-term problems.

That's great if you and your dependants are young and healthy. But if someone on your policy has an expensive, chronic condition, you may not be able to change jobs because your new employer's insurance won't cover that member of your family. How is that good for business? On the other hand, we could have a system where the high risks of your loved one could be spread across the pool of insured persons, the added cost to all policy holders would be pennies, and the business community would benefit by being able to move your valuable talents to the best employer.

[ogopogo]

Oh by the way - let me be clear - my point is that the PM up in Canada is coming to the US for heart surgery.
Since when? You may want to recheck your sources on that.

[jazzman]

This is simply not true in the slightest. No offense, but you got the law wrong in so many places I really don't know where to start. ...

Cheers!

Yup, I kinda seem to recall some of those details from the decades I've been practicing law. But all of your points simply ignore reality. What you're really proposing is that every patient will have to hire a lawyer and sue a distant corporation every time it intentionally denies a claim that it should have paid. Not practical. On the other hand, if my insurance company tries to pull that with me, I simply contact my state's insurance commission, file a claim, and wait for the state to do its stuff.

We're not talking about the kind of lawsuit that generates "pain and suffering" or other damages, beyond your actual losses. So you're going to have to pay your lawyer out of your pocket. All of the money you recover from the insurance company will go to pay your medical bill; legal expenses are extra. The amount of money involved will have to be enormous before you would even consider such a suit, and a poor or even average middle class patient won't be able to take advantage of his state's courts' jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurance company under any circumstances. Bankruptcy will be your only option, if you're lucky enough to qualify under the newer (or future) bankruptcy laws.

Why do you think the insurance companies want interstate sales, without any federal regulation? To help us, out of the kindness of their hearts? I don't think so.

And which states do you think they would choose if they got this scheme passed? The states with strong consumer protection laws, or the states with weak consumer protection laws. Hmmm. I wonder.

[Bertilak]

What you're really proposing is that every patient will have to hire a lawyer and sue a distant corporation every time it intentionally denies a claim that it should have paid. Not practical.

So you are saying that for some reason interstate commerce is impractical when it comes to the health care industry?

[82R100]

Oh by the way - let me be clear - my point is that the PM up in Canada is coming to the US for heart surgery.Since when? You may want to recheck your sources on that.

Actually, he's the premiere of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the Prime Minister.

- Chris

[jazzman]

So you are saying that for some reason interstate commerce is impractical when it comes to the health care industry?

Obviously not. Re-read my post. It's about health insurance companies trying to operate without effective state or federal regulation because they want to violate their contracts with their customers and get away with it. I can't think of any other contractual arrangement between enormous corporations and ordinary citizens that involves such large amounts of money, unequal bargaining strength, and life-and-death issues. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce involving any other aspect of the health care industry. Of course.

[Zenas]

Yup, I kinda seem to recall some of those details from the decades I've been practicing law. But all of your points simply ignore reality. What you're really proposing is that every patient will have to hire a lawyer and sue a distant corporation every time it intentionally denies a claim that it should have paid. Not practical. On the other hand, if my insurance company tries to pull that with me, I simply contact my state's insurance commission, file a claim, and wait for the state to do its stuff.

We're not talking about the kind of lawsuit that generates "pain and suffering" or other damages, beyond your actual losses. So you're going to have to pay your lawyer out of your pocket. All of the money you recover from the insurance company will go to pay your medical bill; legal expenses are extra. The amount of money involved will have to be enormous before you would even consider such a suit, and a poor or even average middle class patient won't be able to take advantage of his state's courts' jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurance company under any circumstances. Bankruptcy will be your only option, if you're lucky enough to qualify under the newer (or future) bankruptcy laws.

Why do you think the insurance companies want interstate sales, without any federal regulation? To help us, out of the kindness of their hearts? I don't think so.

And which states do you think they would choose if they got this scheme passed? The states with strong consumer protection laws, or the states with weak consumer protection laws. Hmmm. I wonder.

Glad to hear I was exactly on point. That's encouraging since I have the Bar Examination in July. :thumbup:

If I understand correctly, you are essentially bemoaning the fact that there are no punative damages in breach of contract cases. That's quickly remedied via legislative action. Pre-emptively, the argument that the lobbyists will stymie such a cause of action flies in the face of the fact that lobbyists haven;t been able to stymie the Obama plan; voter outrage has.

Back to Lost!

[ogopogo]

Actually, he's the premiere of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the Prime Minister.

- Chris
Pretty big difference there. It's like mistaken the POTUS with the governor of North Dakota. It just doesn't give quite the same weight to that post.

[jazzman]

Glad to hear I was exactly on point. That's encouraging since I have the Bar Examination in July. :thumbup:

If I understand correctly, you are essentially bemoaning the fact that there are no punative damages in breach of contract cases. That's quickly remedied via legislative action. Pre-emptively, the argument that the lobbyists will stymie such a cause of action flies in the face of the fact that lobbyists haven;t been able to stymie the Obama plan; voter outrage has.

Back to Lost!

Not even close to what I was trying to say.

But back to Lost.:thumbup1::lol:

[Zenas]

But that would solve your problem; that people can't afford to foot the bill to pay an attorney for relatively smaller claims against insurers.

[Mycon]

Obviously not. Re-read my post. It's about health insurance companies trying to operate without effective state or federal regulation because they want to violate their contracts with their customers and get away with it. I can't think of any other contractual arrangement between enormous corporations and ordinary citizens that involves such large amounts of money, unequal bargaining strength, and life-and-death issues. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce involving any other aspect of the health care industry. Of course.

They do that anyway, even in-state. At the hospital I work at, patients that are fully insured are denied treatments on an almost daily basis. These are for conditions that have been curable for years. They then leave and stick the healthcare providers with the task of telling these people that their chances of survival just got reduced to "good luck." Anyone concerned about death panels needs to realize that the insurance "review boards" are exactly that.

I work in a children's hospital by the way....

[tejasjeff]

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

And We are constantly berated how awful our system is...irony indeed.

[ogopogo]

And We are constantly berated how awful our system is.

Our system is awful. Our specia-lists are not... for those who can afford it or have access to them.

This bit of news is much ado about nothing. But I can see that those who oppose reform are going to latch on to this... really grasping at straws here.

[aodenkou]

By the way, are you on Medicare yet?

- Chris

No not yet, but then I have paid into the system for a lot of years. To be honest I would prefer to be on private insurance till the day I die. But the reality of it is that I will have to go onto Medicare when I am 65. I would guess that I will have supplemental insurance once I go on the system.

[aodenkou]

Since when? You may want to recheck your sources on that.

If you check my original post you will note that I specifically named the PM as Danny Williams and the Province, Newfoundland. There are enough sources on the web to make this a credible story.


Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States. CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 60, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.

Here are several sources http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760---danny-millions-williams-heads-south-for-heart-surgery

http://www.vitalmx.com/forums/Motodrive,19/Newfoundland-Premier-head-to-US-for-surgery,805107?page=1

http://www.thefoxnation.com/canada/2010/02/02/canadian-premier-comes-us-heart-surgery

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/danny-williams-to-undergo-heart-surgery-in-us/article1452524/

[Bertilak]

No not yet, but then I have paid into the system for a lot of years. To be honest I would prefer to be on private insurance till the day I die. But the reality of it is that I will have to go onto Medicare when I am 65. I would guess that I will have supplemental insurance once I go on the system.

I am 64 (Do you still need me? Will you still feed me?) and will be on Medicare next year. I have paid a TON of money into this for over 40 years and will get pretty upset if (as is possible) ORP-care (Obama-Reid-Pelosi-care) somehow impacts that.

[aodenkou]

Pretty big difference there. It's like mistaken the POTUS with the governor of North Dakota. It just doesn't give quite the same weight to that post.

I specifically named the individual, and where he was from. My apologize if my ignorance of the exact nature of the name of his position. BUT I did recognize that he was not the PM of Canada, and I did provide a source for my comment. If my wording was not 100% correct, I am sorry.

BUT the underlying point is that an individual who is high in the pecking order of the Canadian government and who is a millionaire has made the choice to come to the US for treatment and not wait on the Canadian system that is imposed on the rest of the Canadians who can not afford to travel out of country for treatment.

This is what many of us here in the US are fighting against. Our politicians will still have their own health care system that will be separate from the rest of us, and where will the rest of us go to receive treatment when our system deteriorates?

[aodenkou]

Our system is awful. Our specia-lists are not... for those who can afford it or have access to them.

This bit of news is much ado about nothing. But I can see that those who oppose reform are going to latch on to this... really grasping at straws here.

Have you ever traveled outside the US? Have you ever experienced health care in a system that is run by the government? Do you have friends who are on waiting lists for treatment, or have waited long times for treatment?

I can say yes to all of these. While there are things that could be improved they are much better here than in other places.

[Tanksfurnutin]

I am 64 (Do you still need me? Will you still feed me?) and will be on Medicare next year. I have paid a TON of money into this for over 40 years and will get pretty upset if (as is possible) ORP-care (Obama-Reid-Pelosi-care) somehow impacts that.

I find it interesting when people say they don't want government run health care but have no problem with Medicare. Not to mention the Bush prescription plan.

[Tanksfurnutin]

Do you really think that the entire state of Texas is just blindly paying whatever bill is presented? I didn't ignore anything. In '03 tort reform was passed in Texas and healthcare costs have not gone down for the state. It appears that tort reform has failed us Interesting Blog (http://threewisemenblog.com/2009/12/19/texas-tort-reform-failure/).

The New Yorker also had an interesting article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande) about Tort reform. :001_smile

The point I'm making is that Tort Reform certainly does not APPEAR to be the answer. I like the idea, but it's not saving us any money. That's my only point.

Thanks for those links Paul. Some very interesting information on how much tort reform has helped in Texas.

[82R100]

I find it interesting when people say they don't want government run health care but have no problem with Medicare. Not to mention the Bush prescription plan.

I'm sure he has a problem with it--he just doesn't want his contributions flushed down the drain at this late date.

[Zenas]

When money is forcibly taken from you to contribute to something you disagree with so that a benefit can be conferred on you one day, you can hardly slight someone for accepting that benefit and trying to get their money's worth. I'm sure he'd rather have his money back.

Even so, Medicare is a far cry from the restructuring we're talking about with the new health plan.

[Bertilak]

I find it interesting when people say they don't want government run health care but have no problem with Medicare. Not to mention the Bush prescription plan.

I would *rather* all that money had gone into an HSA so I could manage how it's spent on my own, but hey, I had no option and I already paid for it.

I am not up on what the "Bush Prescription Plan " is.

[82R100]

I am not up on what the "Bush Prescription Plan " is.

Medicare Part D (http://www.medicare.gov/pdphome.asp)

[Confuzius]

Have you ever traveled outside the US? Have you ever experienced health care in a system that is run by the government? Do you have friends who are on waiting lists for treatment, or have waited long times for treatment?

I can say yes to all of these. While there are things that could be improved they are much better here than in other places.

My girlfriend's father went in for a routine blood test, the Dr. found that his white blood cell count was amok. They found intestinal cancer and he was being operated on less than 3 days later, in the public system. I think after all was said and done that initial operation cost him maybe $20.00.... for parking.

My dad has chronic back and nerve problems and for a time being was in and out of seeing doctors because they suspected that he might have MS, a handful of MRI's and dozens of consults with neurosurgeons (or neurologists? I'm not to sure) later and again the biggest expense was parking. - Turns out he didn't have MS, just an unrelated event that is often a sign of MS. The longest wait there was about a month, and that was just for an appointment with a very specialized neuro-whatever who was the top in his field for this part of the country. Again, the parking was the most expensive part of that whole ordeal.

Canada gets a bum rap.

As for the Premier of Newfoundland, he's independently wealthy and apparently has a need for a very specialized treatment, and while it was stated that he couldn't get his treatment in Newfoundland there was no mention of whether or not it was available elsewhere in Canada. This Premier also has a history of thumbing his nose at the federal government. This could be a combination of being recommended a certain specific doctor at a private hospital in the States and/or an opportunity to take a jab at the feds to get more funding for Newfoundland or any number of calculated political motives.

[Bertilak]

Medicare Part D (http://www.medicare.gov/pdphome.asp)

Ah, that.

My parents had that choice but we turned it down because the plan through the company he retired from was at least as good and sticking with that would not make us deal with yet another provider. Besides, the choice was one way -- if they dropped the current plan they could never get back and didn't want to surrender to the whims of politics.

[Bertilak]

My girlfriend's father went in for a routine blood test, the Dr. found that his white blood cell count was amok. They found intestinal cancer and he was being operated on less than 3 days later, in the public system. I think after all was said and done that initial operation cost him maybe $20.00.... for parking.

My dad has chronic back and nerve problems and for a time being was in and out of seeing doctors because they suspected that he might have MS, a handful of MRI's and dozens of consults with neurosurgeons (or neurologists? I'm not to sure) later and again the biggest expense was parking. - Turns out he didn't have MS, just an unrelated event that is often a sign of MS. The longest wait there was about a month, and that was just for an appointment with a very specialized neuro-whatever who was the top in his field for this part of the country. Again, the parking was the most expensive part of that whole ordeal.

Canada gets a bum rap.

As for the Premier of Newfoundland, he's independently wealthy and apparently has a need for a very specialized treatment, and while it was stated that he couldn't get his treatment in Newfoundland there was no mention of whether or not it was available elsewhere in Canada. This Premier also has a history of thumbing his nose at the federal government. This could be a combination of being recommended a certain specific doctor at a private hospital in the States and/or an opportunity to take a jab at the feds to get more funding for Newfoundland or any number of calculated political motives.

I believe you are right that Canada "gets a bum rap" in that things are probably not as bad as they are made out to be, but this guy's experience (the Premier) is not atypical. He is not the only one to come to the US for treatment and I don't remember hearing of anyone going from the US to Canada for treatment.

I do object to the "free" part. Someone is paying for that.

I also remember my father's experience with Medicare. He needed cataract surgery (lens replacement). There were a range of lenses on the market from el-cheapos to top quality. Medicare did not pay for the highest quality and that's OK with me. What was NOT OK was that Medicare would not allow my father to get the quality lens even at his own expense! Not only would they not pay for the lower quality lens and let my father make up the difference, they made it impossible for the doctor to provide the top quality lens to anyone eligible for Medicare! He would either lose his license or be barred from Medicare payments (I forget which). That regulation has since been changed, but it illustrates what a bureaucracy with an agenda can do.

[kadett]

the Canadian system that is imposed on the rest of the Canadians who can not afford to travel out of country for treatment.



First of all the Canadian medical system is a privilege of living here. I thank God that as a nation my forefathers decided in 1948 that as a people we would all go forward together for a better society rather than live according to the law of the jungle. I have to say that I would much rather live up here with my public healthcare system than down in the US where if I was poor and got sick I'd be left to die on the street like roadkill. So please don't use some exceptional story from my country as some kind of justification for your own country's disgraceful shambles of a medical system.

I think what I have read on this thread so far speaks volumes about the general lack human compassion prevalent in US society. Remember your system of healthcare only for the rich is the exception in the developed world. Perhaps you might do well to ask why the US healthcare system works along similar lines to those in Third World banana republics.

[mparker762]

I think what I have read on this thread so far speaks volumes about the general lack human compassion prevalent in US society. Remember your system of healthcare only for the rich is the exception in the developed world.

(a) I think you have a very low definition of "rich". I had insurance when I was making $28k/yr. But even without that insurance I could still have gotten medical care, though I would have had to pay for it myself.

(b) The fact that the Premier of Newfoundland is coming here for his surgery is a pretty good indication that we do *not* have a banana-republic level of health care. This would be exceptional if it were unusual, but it is not. I can see why you would prefer it not be mentioned since this sort of thing seems to be a pretty solid rebuke to the Canadian medical system made by people who know enough to see the difference between the two systems.

(c) You are mistaken about that whole "left by the side of the road to die" bit. It is illegal in the US to refuse emergency services for inability to pay, and many lesser levels of care are also available for free. Before I had my first job (i.e. poor and uninsured) I needed to go to the emergency room for a problem breathing, and was treated for free. My uninsured sister-in-law, rendered homeless and destitute by the Katrina hurricane, was diagnosed a few weeks later with terminal cancer, and recieved free medical care including chemo and other necessary medications over an 8 month period until her death. That the press in the US and Canada fail to report the availability of these services reflects badly for them, but not for the US medical system.

[tg16]

First of all the Canadian medical system is a privilege of living here. I thank God that as a nation my forefathers decided in 1948 that as a people we would all go forward together for a better society rather than live according to the law of the jungle. I have to say that I would much rather live up here with my public healthcare system than down in the US where if I was poor and got sick I'd be left to die on the street like roadkill. So please don't use some exceptional story from my country as some kind of justification for your own country's disgraceful shambles of a medical system.

I think what I have read on this thread so far speaks volumes about the general lack human compassion prevalent in US society. Remember your system of healthcare only for the rich is the exception in the developed world. Perhaps you might do well to ask why the US healthcare system works along similar lines to those in Third World banana republics.

Just because we, the majority of Americans, do not want the Obama - Pelosi - Reid health care system does not mean we lack compassion and are against reform. Also, we already have laws requiring care regardless of the ability to pay. It seems that many, such as yourself, feel compelled to insult us without knowledge of the facts.

[jazzman]

Just because we, the majority of Americans, do not want the Obama - Pelosi - Reid health care system does not mean we lack compassion and are against reform. Also, we already have laws requiring care regardless of the ability to pay. It seems that many, such as yourself, feel compelled to insult us without knowledge of the facts.

Speaking of the facts, how do you figure that the majority of Americans oppose health care insurance reform? That certainly is not reflected in the most recent national election, in which candidates favoring health care insurance reform won the presidential election and the majority of both Houses of Congress. The majority in both Houses even passed reform bills. The fact that those politicians have been ineffective in finishing the job has a number of causes. But please explain what you mean by "we, the majority of Americans."

[Confuzius]

I believe you are right that Canada "gets a bum rap" in that things are probably not as bad as they are made out to be, but this guy's experience (the Premier) is not atypical. He is not the only one to come to the US for treatment and I don't remember hearing of anyone going from the US to Canada for treatment.

I do object to the "free" part. Someone is paying for that.


Medical Tourism is big business, a lot of people are leaving the States to find more affordable medical care. (People are also leaving Canada, I'm not blind to this.)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

I know it's not "free" everyone is paying for it. I guess that's just a fundamental belief system difference though. I feel that's how it should be; what good is being part of a community or nation if you can't rely on that nation for help when you need it. While Joe top 2%'s taxes may help pay for Carpenter Carl's surgery, the relative millions of Carpenter Carls' contributions to the economy helped Joe top 2% get where he is today.

Anyhow I was just trying to stick up for Canada a bit, enjoy your thread!

[FreezerBurns]

I believe he said (in summary) the majority of Americans do not lack compassion or oppose reform.

[TimmyBoston]

This thread has gone on longer than it should have.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing attacks against people because of their nationalities.

Everyone in this thread has been warned. If you think your post might offend anyone, don't post it.

[tg16]

Speaking of the facts, how do you figure that the majority of Americans oppose health care insurance reform? That certainly is not reflected in the most recent national election, in which candidates favoring health care insurance reform won the presidential election and the majority of both Houses of Congress. The majority in both Houses even passed reform bills. The fact that those politicians have been ineffective in finishing the job has a number of causes. But please explain what you mean by "we, the majority of Americans."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The polls show the majority of Americans are opposed to the current health care reform as proposed. I've included one for review. There are others such as Gallup that indicate the same. So yes, most Americans are opposed to what has been proposed.

Most Americans want reform, but not the reform offered by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Winning the election based on reform does not guarantee your final plan will be acceptable or accepted blindly.

[mparker762]

Speaking of the facts, how do you figure that the majority of Americans oppose health care insurance reform? That certainly is not reflected in the most recent national election, in which candidates favoring health care insurance reform won the presidential election and the majority of both Houses of Congress.

You're confusing the general with the specific. It's certainly possible for the majority to be in favor of "health care reform" but be opposed to these two specific omnibus reform plans. Heck, it's even possible for the public to be hugely in favor health care reform in general and yet find that there exists no set of specific reforms that would be favored by a majority.

[Bertilak]

I think what I have read on this thread so far speaks volumes about the general lack human compassion prevalent in US society. Remember your system of healthcare only for the rich is the exception in the developed world.

I doubt there is a single person in America that does not have access to health care -- even illegal immigrants. That aspect of things is a red herring. But it is a messy and inefficient situation that should be fixed -- just not at the cost of ever more social-ism.


Perhaps you might do well to ask why the US healthcare system works along similar lines to those in Third World banana republics.
Perhaps you might do well to ask ask yourself why you believe that. It is probably the fault of the news media. As Mark Twain said (when newspapers were the only news media): "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

[FLTiger]

Just because we, the majority of Americans, do not want the Obama - Pelosi - Reid health care system does not mean we lack compassion and are against reform.

Yet, when the Republicans were in total control of Congress, they did not feel that health care reform was worth their time.


Also, we already have laws requiring care regardless of the ability to pay.

This is why I am amazed at the opposition to health care reform. The cost of care for the uninsured is covered by increases in everyone else's medical bills already. The most expensive care you can receive is in the emergency room, and the vast majority of those without coverage are forced to resort to the ER for their care. Now, if everyone were insured, many of these folks would go to doctors and clinics, and receive preventative care that costs much less than ER visits. Since we're all already having to pay for their care anyway, why not make the system as a whole more efficient?

[tg16]

Yet, when the Republicans were in total control of Congress, they did not feel that health care reform was worth their time.



This is why I am amazed at the opposition to health care reform. The cost of care for the uninsured is covered by increases in everyone else's medical bills already. The most expensive care you can receive is in the emergency room, and the vast majority of those without coverage are forced to resort to the ER for their care. Now, if everyone were insured, many of these folks would go to doctors and clinics, and receive preventative care that costs much less than ER visits. Since we're all already having to pay for their care anyway, why not make the system as a whole more efficient?

I agree, but not with the system proposed. There were parts of the proposed reform I supported, but there were more parts I did not support. I realize some say, "lets pass it and fix it later"; however, I do not trust government to fix anything later and that includes both parties.

[Bertilak]

Yet, when the Republicans were in total control of Congress, they did not feel that health care reform was worth their time.

And perhaps that is to their shame.


This is why I am amazed at the opposition to health care reform. The cost of care for the uninsured is covered by increases in everyone else's medical bills already.
Perhaps because social-ism is (still) mostly unpopular. And perhaps because these particular bills are especially bad, even from the point of view of people in favor of social-ism, being full of special interest political tricks and kickbacks, being hugely expensive with uncertain funding, the sleazy ways they were arrived at and with 2000 pages of lawyer-speak from people it would be crazy to trust.

[FLTiger]

I agree, but not with the system proposed. There were parts of the proposed reform I supported, but there were more parts I did not support. I realize some say, "lets pass it and fix it later"; however, I do not trust government to fix anything later and that includes both parties.


And perhaps because these particular bills are especially bad, even from the point of view of people in favor of social-ism, being full of special interest political tricks and kickbacks, being hugely expensive with uncertain funding, the sleazy ways they were arrived at and with 2000 pages of lawyer-speak from people it would be crazy to trust.

I find the influence of lobbyists around this issue to be most infuriating--and they contribute to folks on both sides of the aisle. :cursing:

I'd like one Congress, please, that actually conducts the people's business and represents the voters and not their biggest lobbying interests.

[rsvossen]

This thread has gone on longer than it should have.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing attacks against people because of their nationalities.

Everyone in this thread has been warned. If you think your post might offend anyone, don't post it.

Well said! I do not agree with ad-hominem arguments and they cannot contribute anything to this discussion nor do they add anything substantial.

I am not up to date with the specifics of this healthcare reform in the US (I have heard about it though), so therefore I will not say anything about it as regards to content. What I do think, though, is that the media don't always deliver 'clean' facts, but rather give one-sided views so as to force their opinions upon their viewers/readers. Consequently people are pro or contra without exactly being able to explain it. Luckily lots of replies in this thread show that my fellow B&B'ers have good arguments (pro and contra).


As to the psychological / biological part I want to say the following. As part of an honours programme (Law) I followed a course 'Law and Biology'. We researched groups, group stability, altruism, selfishness etc. in a biological / psycological perspective and we tried to link this information as to how legal systems can be explained with biology / psychology. It is highly controversial to research this in The Netherlands, because most law academicians do not agree with it. Anyway, the interesting part. On one side humans live in groups because they are social creatures and on the other side they live in groups because they can enlarge their own benefits in doing so. This is just a simple theory that has been discussed thoroughly in psychological and biological literature. This theory has been confirmed with empirical data. Keeping the theory in mind the most likely outcome is that, if the reform imposes more costs than benefits, majority will vote contra. We can then also understand why people would vote against their own interest.

Some people will vote pro (against their own intrest) becuase:
Humans are social creatures: people are willing to bear costs even though they don't get as much benefit out of it.

Some people will vote contra (against their own interest) because:
Humans are social creatures: the costs imposed on the group are bigger than the benefits enjoyed.

The people that don't vote against their own interest will consider both sides (social and own benefit).

It is more complicated than this simple example (and I hope it's not too abstract), but it may make you understand better why people are willing to vote against their own interests. I want to state clearly though that this is based on the course that I have followed and I am no expert. These are just my views based on what I have learned during that course. What I find even more important to note is that even though this information may be correct, I have obviously not taken into account what the media do to force their opinion on to people (as stated above). In my opinion the media have too much influence on matters like these.

[82R100]

Originally Posted by jazzman
Speaking of the facts, how do you figure that the majority of Americans oppose health care insurance reform? That certainly is not reflected in the most recent national election, in which candidates favoring health care insurance reform won the presidential election and the majority of both Houses of Congress. The majority in both Houses even passed reform bills. The fact that those politicians have been ineffective in finishing the job has a number of causes. But please explain what you mean by "we, the majority of Americans."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The polls show the majority of Americans are opposed to the current health care reform as proposed.

Do you really want your legislation driven by opinion polls? I certainly don't want it driven by Rasmussen's opinion polls. That's what elected representation's for.

[tg16]

I find the influence of lobbyists around this issue to be most infuriating--and they contribute to folks on both sides of the aisle. :cursing:

I'd like one Congress, please, that actually conducts the people's business and represents the voters and not their biggest lobbying interests.

I like the way both parties blame each other for all of our ills, when in fact, they were all taking money from the same groups. Both parties got us where we are today and both are to blame for the health care problems.

[Bertilak]

Do you really want your legislation driven by opinion polls? I certainly don't want it driven by Rasmussen's opinion polls. That's what elected representation's for.

I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths, but that's not what I read into the above posts. As I see it, the point of referencing polls is not to say which way the legislators should vote, but to discredit a line of reasoning used by proponents of the current proposals in congress.

It was stated that because people voted for someone who promised health care reform that most people must be in favor of health care reform (explicitly stated and probably true).

The mistken argument goes as follows...

Most people must be in favor of the current proposals (implied by several of the above posts but mistaken as shown by polls and even by the voting in an election where this very point was a, maybe even "the", main issue).
Our legislators are not doing their job because they are not abiding by the will of the people (explicitly stated but mistaken based on the mistaken assumption of # 1).

The polls show that the assumption in 1 is false. They are NOT being used (or at least should not be used) as an argument to vote one way or the other.

BTW, the Rasmussen polls have historically been the most accurate at predicting election outcomes so I would not disparage them lightly, no matter how much I disliked their findings -- and I am not always happy about what they find but I don't disbelieve them.

[tg16]

Do you really want your legislation driven by opinion polls? I certainly don't want it driven by Rasmussen's opinion polls. That's what elected representation's for.

I would like for the elected representatives to represent the people. When they stop doing that and try to force unpopular legislation, they are no longer representing the people.

In that I have no means to poll everyone in the country, I do rely on public opinion polls. If there is a better way to gauge public opinion, I would like to hear of it.

[professorchaos]

I like the way both parties blame each other for all of our ills, when in fact, they were all taking money from the same groups. Both parties got us where we are today and both are to blame for the health care problems.

YES! Let's fire the lot of them. Term limits for Congress; no professional politicians. Where do I sign up?

[jazzman]

You're confusing the general with the specific. It's certainly possible for the majority to be in favor of "health care reform" but be opposed to these two specific omnibus reform plans. Heck, it's even possible for the public to be hugely in favor health care reform in general and yet find that there exists no set of specific reforms that would be favored by a majority.

You and tg16 and I actually agree with each other somewhat on this one. I'm certainly not happy with either bill. There are too many Democrats, along with all of the Republicans, who don't seem to be coming up with the right solutions. I'll try to stay optimistic and hope that it's not too late.

[tg16]

YES! Let's fire the lot of them. Term limits for Congress; no professional politicians. Where do I sign up?

Edwin E. has the membership application.:lol:

[Obsessed]

YES! Let's fire the lot of them. Term limits for Congress; no professional politicians. Where do I sign up?

Term limits? You don't trust the people to make their own decisions about whom to elect and for how long? Sounds kinda paternalistic to me. :wink:

[Bertilak]

Do you really want your legislation driven by opinion polls? I certainly don't want it driven by Rasmussen's opinion polls. That's what elected representation's for.

As I hoped I made clear in my previous reply to your post, I also don't think legislation should be driven (entirely) by opinion polls. It does take leadership.

BUT if things are obviously unpopular, that leadership should consist of changing people's minds -- getting them to understand and agree. With the current situation it is a matter of forcing things down people's throats and as Obama has so coolly put it -- let them figure it out afterward. No one has made any attempt to explain how the current proposals will help, just that they will help ("trust us") and anyone who can't see that is somehow to blame for not understanding. But the proponents of the current proposals have never even attempted to explain them. They have not argued them on their merits. They have been "argued" with bribes, threats and name-calling ("obstructionist tea-baggers") and to get back to the original topic of this thread, accusing people of not voting in their own interests. (Is the implication that they are too stupid to do so?).

[airplanedoc]

I like the way both parties blame each other for all of our ills, when in fact, they were all taking money from the same groups. Both parties got us where we are today and both are to blame for the health care problems.


That is about the best statement in the entire thread.

[ogopogo]

I specifically named the individual, and where he was from. My apologize if my ignorance of the exact nature of the name of his position. BUT I did recognize that he was not the PM of Canada, and I did provide a source for my comment. If my wording was not 100&#37; correct, I am sorry.
OK, I didn't see the post where you called him by name, just that you said he was the PM of Canada not Premier of NL.


BUT the underlying point is that an individual who is high in the pecking order of the Canadian government and who is a millionaire has made the choice to come to the US for treatment and not wait on the Canadian system that is imposed on the rest of the Canadians who can not afford to travel out of country for treatment.

Is not a system that is imposed. Is a system which the overwhelming majority of people support and are very happy with it.


This is what many of us here in the US are fighting against. Our politicians will still have their own health care system that will be separate from the rest of us, and where will the rest of us go to receive treatment when our system deteriorates?
The system is deteriorating. And if you're worried about an elite class getting better treatment than the "rest of us", I got news for you; it's already happening. If you're rich you get excellent care. If you're poor or/and uninsured... good luck. And left untouched, it will get worse.

BTW, Americans already go abroad to receive treatment. I personally know two people who drive down to Mexico to receive dental and medical care.


Have you ever traveled outside the US? Have you ever experienced health care in a system that is run by the government? Do you have friends who are on waiting lists for treatment, or have waited long times for treatment?
-Yes, many times.

-Not personally, but I have been with others who have. It turned out great.

-Yes, here in the U.S., including myself when I found myself unemployed. Let me tell you, horrible experience... and I had an "inside man" (well, woman) that helped to expedite (if you can really call it that) things enormously. I've seen better service in so-called third world countries.



As for the Premier of Newfoundland, he's independently wealthy and apparently has a need for a very specialized treatment, and while it was stated that he couldn't get his treatment in Newfoundland there was no mention of whether or not it was available elsewhere in Canada. This Premier also has a history of thumbing his nose at the federal government. This could be a combination of being recommended a certain specific doctor at a private hospital in the States and/or an opportunity to take a jab at the feds to get more funding for Newfoundland or any number of calculated political motives.
Exactly.

[professorchaos]

Term limits? You don't trust the people to make their own decisions about whom to elect and for how long? Sounds kinda paternalistic to me. :wink:

I don't trust the politicians who make the rules they play by ... for instance, one has to wonder how they manage to keep getting raises when their performance has been abysmal for years. Oh, wait, the members of Congress decide when they should get a raise. :huh:

On a more serious note, in a very general sense I think the root of our many problems is a political class whose members are more concerned with their own welfare than that of the nation and its citizens. Perhaps if politics couldn't be a career, they'd start looking out for their constituents instead of their jobs.

[richmondesi]

yeah, fear of not being re-elected has to (as I see it) account for politicians not tackling major issues and bringing real solutions to the table.

[luvmysuper]

The system is deteriorating. And if you're worried about an elite class getting better treatment than the "rest of us", I got news for you; it's already happening. If you're rich you get excellent care. If you're poor or/and uninsured... good luck. And left untouched, it will get worse.

This is the only country where I get the chance to hear people argue that the best way to "even the playing field" is to drag EVERYBODY down to crappy health care.

[Obsessed]

I don't trust the politicians who make the rules they play by ... .

Yes, but the same type of argument can be made in many situations in which one might propose regulation due to imbalances in power, money, information, or whatever. I might actually argue that the case for regulation in the relationship between elected officials and voters is weaker that other such situations because ultimately the voters still have the power to oust the politicians. (I'm a little tired, so forgive me if I'm not expressing that thought as clearly as I'd like to.)

[richmondesi]

Yes, but the same type of argument can be made in many situations in which one might propose regulation due to imbalances in power, money, information, or whatever. I might actually argue that the case for regulation in the relationship between elected officials and voters is weaker that other such situations because ultimately the voters still have the power to oust the politicians. (I'm a little tired, so forgive me if I'm not expressing that thought as clearly as I'd like to.)

I think it's a fair point. This is part of the shift in my thinking that I referenced earlier in this thread

[ogopogo]

This is the only country where I get the chance to hear people argue that the best way to "even the playing field" is to drag EVERYBODY down to crappy health care.
Really? who's arguing that? Not me, not anyone I know.

It's funny though, that those who oppose reform love to point to the faults of Canada's and Britain's systems when the proposed changes would make us nothing like them. Pretty harsh and insulting to call their systems "crappy". They're really aren't.

[FreezerBurns]

I'm not disputing your information, just asking for further explanation, if you please:



BTW, Americans already go abroad to receive treatment. I personally know two people who drive down to Mexico to receive dental and medical care. .

Everyone knows goods and services are cheap in Mexico. Here in AZ, there is a bus that elderly (Medicare age) folks can catch to Mexico to purchase perscriptions because it is cheap. How far of of a drive is it for these two people you know personally? Exactly what procedures did they go there for? Would someone in New Hampshire benefit from the same travel?




I've seen better service in so-called third world countries.


What service? What country?

[airplanedoc]

Would someone in New Hampshire benefit

Go over to Canada, My dad has been getting his scripts there for years. You can still save half.

Lots of people on border states take the bus south for scripts and alcohol. They run monthly from many retirement communities.

When I last came back from Canada, there were several canadians on the boat, rode over, walked into duty free, bought smokes, then turned around and got right back on the boat. Never even cleared customs.

[ogopogo]

Everyone knows goods and services are cheap in Mexico. Here in AZ, there is a bus that elderly (Medicare age) folks can catch to Mexico to purchase perscriptions because it is cheap. How far of of a drive is it for these two people you know personally? Exactly what procedures did they go there for? Would someone in New Hampshire benefit from the same travel?
One is my uncle. A few years ago he needed extensive dental work done. Even with insurance, it would've cost him around 7-10k here in the States. On the advice of a friend, he decided to go to TJ. He had to go several times, but he was very satisfied when it was done. And it only cost him a fraction of the price, I think it was less than $1,500. He still goes twice a year for check ups. It takes him a couple of hours to get there.

The other is a guy at my old job. We worked for a company that offered insurance to employees that worked over 35 hours. Interestingly enough, they hired mostly part-timers for 35 hours -- being one of them, he didn't get insurance. He would also go to TJ or Ensenada for medical and dental check ups and for his optometry needs as well. Contact lenses and glasses were pretty inexpensive there.

Both these cases are in SoCal, where it only takes 2 hours to get there. As for someone from New Hampshire, I guess it would depend on what they need it. If is something like spinal surgery like this (http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Spinal-Surgery-In-Mexico-Offers-American-Patients-Relief-From-Chronic-Lower-Back-Pain/834399) article talks about, then it would be worth it.


What service? What country?
Chile. My brother-in-law is from there. My sister and him lived in Santiago for almost 2 years. He's been suffering for years from back problems due to a motorcycle accident, it's gotten so bad that the poor guy now has a morphine pump implant . While in Chile, he got excellent care using their publicly funded health care system (it's a mixed system, but about 70% use the "public option" to some extend). My sister and I were pretty impressed. They now live in Germany because of my sister's job, and they're also pretty happy with the system there.

[luvmysuper]

Really? who's arguing that? Not me, not anyone I know.

I have no control over who you know, and what subject the people you do know argue about.


It's funny though, that those who oppose reform love to point to the faults of Canada's and Britain's systems when the proposed changes would make us nothing like them. Pretty harsh and insulting to call their systems "crappy". They're really aren't.

Your paranoia is showing.
I didn't say a word about Britain or Canada.
I think it's pretty telling about your REAL mindset that when I mention a crappy health care system, you automatically assume that I am speaking of Britain and Canada.

[Tanksfurnutin]

This is the only country where I get the chance to hear people argue that the best way to "even the playing field" is to drag EVERYBODY down to crappy health care.

I'm not sure why you think it would be crappy. It's not like all of the sudden there will be a mass exodus of doctors and health care people.

[82R100]

I have no control over who you know, and what subject the people you do know argue about.



Your paranoia is showing.
I didn't say a word about Britain or Canada.
I think it's pretty telling about your REAL mindset that when I mention a crappy health care system, you automatically assume that I am speaking of Britain and Canada.

There's been nothing but comparisons with Britain and Canada throughout this thread!

[luvmysuper]

I'm not sure why you think it would be crappy. It's not like all of the sudden there will be a mass exodus of doctors and health care people.

(sigh)

Who will pay those doctors and health care people?
Right now, excellent health care is available to those who have means of affording it. (cash or insurance)
Those who cannot afford it get by with lesser quality publicly available health care on a space available basis.
To bring everyone up to the level of the first group would require an influx of cash that is not sustainable.
The only other option is to lower the quality of the health care of the first group to marginally increase the quality of health care of the second group. That marginal increase will not be in the quality of care per se, but in availability, so no net gain in quality for the second group, and a net loss in quality for the first.

Doctors have an expensive and rigorous path to qualification. Many go through this because the potential gains are significant. What is the incentive for the extra expense and work to become a Doctor when what you can earn is regulated by the Government?

[luvmysuper]

There's been nothing but comparisons with Britain and Canada throughout this thread!

I have no control over what other posters have said in this thread.
My point is that I didn't say it.

There have been disparaging comments by others about the current political administration as well, shall I take you to task for that?

[Gruder]

Looks like this one has devolved overnight into debating individuals and semantics instead of topics. Tim gave the first warning already, so this thread is locked.