patrick.net

In short, fuck you and stop trying to dictate was is good for everyone else and mind your own goddamn business.

More of the same - paper tigers with stale vitriol. Patrick, there must be some way to track IP addresses of posters. I'm sure the data would yield what I suspect; thirty different handles belonging to one or two insurance goons who feel you're a threat to their Porsche payment.

blowero says

2ndClassCitizen says

Yeah and whoever smelt it dealt it.

Sorry I couldn’t resist just one more childish retort in honor of your keen (paranoid) detective skills. No way could anyone possibly agree with a 2ndClassCitizen like me.

Wow, you really zinged Some Guy. You sure is funny.

Just wondering if whoever smelt it dealt it made any sense to Some Guy.

Misstrial says

Sorry to bring this thread back up to the top again, but I have to ask:
With all of the debt ($11T so far) our country is in, wouldn’t it be better to get our financial house in order first before enacting a staggeringly expensive benefit program?
I think its the wrong time to pursue this, sorry.
Maybe when our financial house is in order, then yes, but not now.

You miss the point. If we don't reduce the costs of medicare (which requires reforming the entire system), we will have much more debt.

The alternative is just dropping medicare entirely. Good luck with that.

Basically, we pay around 4500 per capita (for every citizen) for Medicare to cover just seniors and the very poorest. Canada pays 3500 per capita to insure every citizen. So, in theory anyhow, we could cover every single citizen for just what we already pay for medicare and still pay almost 25% more than Canada per capita (which should buy us shorter wait times than Canada too, again, in theory). And that would be without paying a cent for private policies or without employers paying a cent of the money they currently pay for group insurance.

The point is, we're really that rich of a country, but we pay way, way too much for what we currently get (as in a lower life expectancy than Bosnia). It's hard to believe we cannot find some way to do better.

The health care "debate" and the emotion on both "sides" of the issue is not (at least in my humble opinion) as much about the complete lack of money to pay for any kind of public option as it is about the ability to choose. You can gripe all you want about our current state of affairs but the fact of the matter is that right now most people are happy to have the freedom we have. As government takes more control of the payment side, people are concerned that their relationship with their providers will be compromised. After all, he who pays the bills is the one who has the final say. If the government collective pays the bills, the final say is removed from me as a patient and put in the hand of some bureaucrat. Right now if I raise enough money or get enough of my friends to chip in we can buy any operation we need for anyone we know. But if the government takes control it will be in the hands of some bureaucrat who will most likely have the ability and motivation to make politically influenced decisions. If I can't at least use the fruits of my labor pursue my own happiness then the Declaration of Independence becomes meaningless.

Much of illness could be prevented by good habits and eliminating bad choices. Another reason why the idea of public health care is so distasteful is that it would not be just to subsidize the health care of individuals who make bad choices that result in their own diseases. Smoking, lack of exercise, poor diet, drug abuse: these are all choices that Americans SHOULD be allowed to make. However all Americans should not be responsible for the choices of other Americans. Meaning, if you smoke till you get lung cancer, or live a life of no exercise and bad nutrition till your heart gives out, why should anyone pay for your health care bills? By all means live the life you want to live, just don't ask me to pay for it.

Imagine we weren't talking healthcare but oil. Let's say we found out oil companies were charging us twice as much as other countries. And to add insult to injury, they were selling us a lower grade of oil. Would you think most people would be okay with that because the U.S. had greater choice of gas stations? And almost all other countries provide total free choice of doctor. As in Canada, their insurance is nationalized, not their doctors or hospitals.

And honestly, have you EVER dealt with an insurance company bureaucrat? My dentist put one on speakerphone for me recently to show me how incompetent and deceptive they were - they claimed to have "lost" a claim form he sent in 7 times in a year. A claim for $65. How much worse could government bureaucrats be?

Dude, you are ALREADY paying for people with the worst diets and habits through Medicare and, as you know, tax breaks for employer-based coverage. The only question is would you rather pay less and insure more people or continue to pay twice the going rate for a lesser outcome than everyone else (except like Uruguay). There are many, many options that could be discussed to drive down costs besides single payer. Too bad nobody in Washington is discussing most of them.

Ideally no one would have health insurance. We would all make a livable wage that allowed us to save up for a rainy day. A condition similar to this existed before 1913 in the United States. Our excess wealth would be used to insure ourselves. However the government has given us taxes which is uses to subsidize waste and bad behavior, and it has also given us inflation by authorizing the FED to create and control our money supply. It is burning the candle of our money (our only true means of freedom) at both ends by taxing it before we can earn it and devaluing our savings before we can spend them. Freedom is about who controls the money supply. Health care is just one of the freedoms the government is wresting from the people after it has taken control of our money supply.

Yes, but back in 1913, average life expectancy in the U.S. was around 48 years, and your doctor could fit all his instruments in a little black bag, including the bottle of ether he would use to knock you out. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound particularly ideal to me.

Neither does living in a nursing home for your golden years.

Patrick Henry said it right.

There is no question that the current system sucks big time. If you deny that, i don't even want to talk to you. for the rest of the republicans, my sincere request is to come up with a SOLUTION to the current system. I know universal health care sucks too but what is your alternative ? can you republicans come with ideas to fix the current system ?
The best way to counter a proposal is to come up with a better one not just criticize the former.

"Ideally no one would have health insurance." Nice. Little bit utopian and idealistic, especially for you, friend. I like.

"Freedom is about who controls the money supply." Freedom? That's a stretch. That's a very loose, VERY loose use of the word freedom.

There's plenty of money out there, they print enough of it. This is about the haves and the have nots. It's also about an industry that has been increasing its cost at a rate soon to reach 20% of GDP. How else to control those increases except through govt intervention?

Constitutionalist,

You have it exactly 100% wrong, as usual.

>>2. TORT Reform

Howe many times do we have to post on this blog that the cost of malpractice is 0.46% of all healtcare spending as of 2001. How many times does he lie that TORT is the cause of high healthcare cost have to be repeated?

>>1. IMMIGRATION Reform

Now it is your turn to prove what % healtcare spending is for illegal immigrants.

>>This stupid health care proposal is a smoke screen for the real damage being done to our health care system by Lawyers and Illegal Immigrants.

No, it is the other way around: This stupid TORT and IMMIGRANTS proposal is a smoke screen for the real damage being done to our health care system by retarded right-wing Republicans and their corporate puppet masters.

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.
so what do you republicans want us to do ...sit on our asses and do nothing ??
atleast by trying universal health care, we are trying something different than what exists today. you never know, it might turn out to be better than what exists today....but in the absense of any other solution, we should atleast give universal health care a chance.

Alot of what is in Obama's plan was originally Republican musings on healthcare, the idea of the national exchange of private insurers, for example. The problem is that your more conservative types want government out completely. They claim the market can regulate itself, but this is a very iffy proposition with healthcare. Healthcare is highly inelastic. When faced with their own premature deaths or disablement or the premature deaths or disablement of loved ones, people will sell off everything they own, and indebt themselves as far as they can, to pay for whatever care is available.

Imagine if you will, a middle class family with combined assets of $400,000 (owned assets, not debt). Their child gets sick, and the cost of a care is $500,000. They will sell their home and everything they own, then indebt themselves the additional $100,000 if possible to save that child. The rational thing, baring the couple having infertility issues, is to let the kid go and have another, using their assets to do as much prenatal testing as possible to ensure the next child will be healthy. However, in a situation like this, most people can't do the purely rational thing. Human instinct is too powerful, and human instinct doesn't permit most people to put pricetags on their own lives and the lives of those they care about. As a result of human sensibility, in this example the price the market would bear for the care to save the child would still $500,000. Plainly speaking, this is the free market at work, as is denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions, as is recision of payment whenever possible, etc.

The free market is rational. Capitolism is perfect, when perfect beings are at the helm. However, humans are flawed, which is why we need regulation in capitolism.

renter for ever_san jose says

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.
so what do you republicans want us to do …sit on our asses and do nothing ??
atleast by trying universal health care, we are trying something different than what exists today. you never know, it might turn out to be better than what exists today….but in the absense of any other solution, we should atleast give universal health care a chance.

I agree that a perfect free market exists only in the academic world but i don't agree that there is no free market solution to the problem.

"Imagine if you will, a middle class family with combined assets of $400,000 (owned assets, not debt). Their child gets sick, and the cost of a care is $500,000. They will sell their home and everything they own, then indebt themselves the additional $100,000 if possible to save that child. The rational thing, baring the couple having infertility issues, is to let the kid go and have another, using their assets to do as much prenatal testing as possible to ensure the next child will be healthy. However, in a situation like this, most people can’t do the purely rational thing. Human instinct is too powerful, and human instinct doesn’t permit most people to put pricetags on their own lives and the lives of those they care about. As a result of human sensibility, in this example the price the market would bear for the care to save the child would still $500,000.

If there is another hospital which can give the same treatment for $300K, the couple will choose them so the market price would be $300K not $500k. The market price is not determined by just demand but also by supply. your demand is inelastic ...but what about supply.I believe supply is screwed up too.
Another thing thats screwed up is that the couple would not even choose $300K for the same service because the insurance pay's $500K not them ...so they don't care. Its a very very difficult problem to solve and comes inherent with any insurance system.

Patrick,

You are getting conned by the system. People in power do not care about liberal / conservative, they care about control. They also don't care about black or white - they care about control.

There are more than two answers to a single problem and you seem to be implying that we either go with Obama's plan or some unknown plan of the protesters.

Think outside the box. People in control use emotion to agitate the people to get the mob away from the fact that they are parasitical.

Ask yourself a few questions before making emotional rants

1. Do illegal immigrants get a good deal? They are underpaid, and live in an off mainstream culture that takes advantage of them. Is this only because of Republicans? Seems a little odd since the Republicans control nothing. Is it possible that disingenuity on both sides might be keeping the status quo?

2. Health care - are the angry mobs really any different than the people protesting Iraq? They are not of a single opinion, so lumping them all together is short sighted. Maybe some of them want control of spending, maybe some of them have a better idea, maybe some of them just like yelling.

3. Black versus white - people are individuals. Once we stop dealing in categories and start dealing as individuals, this becomes much less relevant. Lazy people talk in generalizations as they are not willing to confront the issues where change can take place. Change comes from the bottom, not the top. Help an underprivileged kid and by doing so, you will illustrate what makes America great. America has great ideals, with fallible people living under them.

jdavidadams@email.com says

Patrick,
You are getting conned by the system. People in power do not care about liberal / conservative, they care about control. They also don’t care about black or white - they care about control.
There are more than two answers to a single problem and you seem to be implying that we either go with Obama’s plan or some unknown plan of the protesters.
Think outside the box. People in control use emotion to agitate the people to get the mob away from the fact that they are parasitical.
Ask yourself a few questions before making emotional rants
1. Do illegal immigrants get a good deal? They are underpaid, and live in an off mainstream culture that takes advantage of them. Is this only because of Republicans? Seems a little odd since the Republicans control nothing. Is it possible that disingenuity on both sides might be keeping the status quo?
2. Health care - are the angry mobs really any different than the people protesting Iraq? They are not of a single opinion, so lumping them all together is short sighted. Maybe some of them want control of spending, maybe some of them have a better idea, maybe some of them just like yelling.
3. Black versus white - people are individuals. Once we stop dealing in categories and start dealing as individuals, this becomes much less relevant. Lazy people talk in generalizations as they are not willing to confront the issues where change can take place. Change comes from the bottom, not the top. Help an underprivileged kid and by doing so, you will illustrate what makes America great. America has great ideals, with fallible people living under them.

^^ My vote for Post of the Day.

~Misstrial

"Having lost the election to a black man who is ten times smarter than Bush."

That's not sayin' much ;) "Ten times smarter than Bush" puts him at about the "imbecile" level....

"Fuck you"

That's classy. And a PERFECT illustration of "Wanna see INSTANT HATE? Disagree with a Libbie ;) lol

You ARE an OWhammy Zombie ;) Now OWN it :)

Patrick - you have degraded yourself to street level talk by using somebody's crude language quote and your f word. Show respect. You lose credibility.

Regarding Gov't healthcare involvement - there are basic questions to be answered before going further. BTW - we have not seen the final package - the cost of new program, who gets it, what does it proviide, etc.

1. Is "affordable (or free for poor)" health care a right for everyone?
2. Can the Gov't afford it with muliti trillion annual deficit and Nat'l Debt?
3. What is the role of Gov't and is it Constitutional?

My brief answers are:
1. No, it is not a right to be paid by others (taking from taxes or gov't borrowing/money creation). Let charity do it. We are all dead in the long run in this short earthly life.
2. It is impossible that the Gov' can afford to take on a massive new program long term without PAIN such as massive taxation, bloating debts leading possibly to hyperinflation or other types of economic catastrophe.
3. It is not the proper role of Gov't and nowhere in the Constitution is stated so. The new Gov't program feeds on the growing statism. In the long run it will lead to punitive medicine.

Another question - how is the new Gov't program (funded by taxpayers with new taxes and new borrowing) going to meet the new demand for doctors once millions and millions get on board?

Patrick - you need to add fairness in this discussion/debate by presenting other views such as the Austrian School and libertarian.

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.

so what do you republicans want us to do …sit on our asses and do nothing ??

A nugget from one of the posters on Paul Krugman's blog:

"Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above)."

renter for ever san jose:

You need to do some internet searching for the various GOP alternatives (I am not a GOP or Dem).

Also look into what the Austrians and libertarians have to offer.

wcalleallegre says

renter for ever san jose:
You need to do some internet searching for the various GOP alternatives (I am not a GOP or Dem).
Also look into what the Austrians and libertarians have to offer.

To clarify for the those who may not know. Austrian School of Economics. A great place to start is on Mises.com

Check out http://mises.org/articles.aspx

drfelle says

renter for ever_san jose says

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.

That’s because it’s not a crisis!

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

By the way, most republican politicians are scum in my humble opinion.

This article in particular is interesting.

http://mises.org/story/3643

futuresmc says

in this example the price the market would bear for the care to save the child would still $500,000.

That would be true if there was only one provider. Unless, of course, we are talking about a very complex procedure using unavoidable resource heavy procedures. Then the cost would be high no matter what system you have.

Real life example. A 62 year old acquantance just got a heart transplant from a 24 year old donor. The bill, including some medical attention before a donor was available, the surgery, and hospital costs, came to about $1 million. His insurance paid about $770k, he is on hook for the rest. He financed his part, and can afford the payments without too serious a degrade in lifestyle. If this procedure prolongs his life by 10 years, the direct money cost to himself/society is $100k per year. Also the opportunity cost of who else may have got that heart. I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system.

kthomas says

“Ideally no one would have health insurance.” Nice. Little bit utopian and idealistic, especially for you, friend. I like.
“Freedom is about who controls the money supply.” Freedom? That’s a stretch. That’s a very loose, VERY loose use of the word freedom.
There’s plenty of money out there, they print enough of it. This is about the haves and the have nots. It’s also about an industry that has been increasing its cost at a rate soon to reach 20% of GDP. How else to control those increases except through govt intervention?

Society is impossible without money. Also without money you have little or no freedom (at least as a member of society). That is only slightly over simplistic but never the less true. And if you have control over some of the money you have some freedom. If not you are just a pawn, unless of course the law of the land grants you freedom that money can't buy (as our Constitution is supposed to but increasingly does not). If you have control over the value of money and how it is spent (like the FED does) you have near absolute control. The FED and its purposeful destruction of the middle class is the biggest problem right now and the cause of the housing bubble, health care bubble and numerous other economic problems.

"I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system." - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.

drfelle - "That’s because it’s not a crisis!" - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

Some Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

I keep trying to point out the differences between an asset bubble scenario and the healthcare price increases over the past 25 years, but... oh well.

We also have an education bubble. Without government subsidies a college education might be affordable.

srla says

“I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system.” - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.
drfelle - “That’s because it’s not a crisis!” - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

I can't speak for anyone else but social security more of a travesty than a crisis.

Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

No the real copros is the idea that if we all just send more money to washington we will all magically have more money in our pockets. Zhazam out of thin air... prosperity!

I generally hate both democrats and republicans ...because common sense and goodwill are generally in the middle and is not affliliated to parties. All party stuff has some hidden agenda

Some things i like from republicans :

Tort reform and illegal immigration reform : no matter how much it contributes to health care issue is not a question.
if its the right thing to do , we need to do it...whats the problem demorats..huh ?

Things i like about democrats : kicking insurance companies in the ass and "trying" to fix the problem because its thier condidates ( lower middle class and poor) who are mostly suffering in the current system

Things i hate about republicans :"fuck the poor guys, its thier problem" attitude
Things i hate about democrats : "govt is the saviour" attitude and thier distrust in free market enterprise.

I have searched the entire internet and still never found a convincing answer as to why free market doesn't work in health care. thiere are some lame answers but not convincing ones. Its also interesting that most people don't discuss why health care is broken( both democrats and republicans).looks like we as a nation are still clueless on why its broken and how to truly fix it.we are 300 million people and still can't find a good solution ? the no.1 nation on planet in innovation. ..seems something is fishy...looks like there are major forces behind all the drama..too much money involved.
Rush limbaugh and chrish mathews are too caught up with thier own agenda and insurance companies are fighting for thier survival.

Constitutionalist,

I said: cost of malpractice is 0.46% of health care cost.

You now try to cast doubt on what exactly is included in the number. Allow me to post the details, as provided by poster Kevin.

"You’re still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome. To clarify for the non-believer, this includes ALL cost of underwriting."

Reference:

/?p=16417&cc=427

All the issues i see are linking to one single thing : lobbying and political contributions.

democrats don't want to do tort reform because they get significant money from lawyers as political contributions. They don't want to touch immigration because they don't want to lose hispanic votes.

republicans are in bed with insurance giants so won't do anything which hurts the insurance companies.
they also want to protect the rich class's right to buy health care rather than see it rationed. They wan't to do this because they represent the rich class.
BTW, i personally know a doctor who pays half of his income for malpractice insurance ( around 100K).I don't give a fuck about internet stats when i personally know from many aquaintances that malpratice insurance is huge part of thier income drain.

The free market SHOULD decide.

LOL...do you really believe we have free market in healthcare.

both supply side ( excessive licensing) and demand side ( price insensitive patients) of the market is broken.