Why our Healthcare is so Expensive

[Swordfish]

Well, here's another tirade for you.

How about when someone said (I forget who it was) that the people who are unemployed and without health insurance can just fall through the cracks? That's just one example. At least they were honest about it.

If you don't believe health care is a right, then I don't know how you (not you personally, but generally speaking) can claim to care about what happens to those who don't have it, through no fault of their own. You can make all the excuses you want, but there have been plenty of personal stories written here. How can you read those and not think that maybe it's your thinking that needs to change, that there are real people who need a safety net and they need it now? The implication is that if someone dies from not having health insurance, they deserve what they get because they weren't responsible enough to get it. And make no mistake--people die. I don't know how you can claim otherwise.

:rofl:

yes. everything I posted falls into your oh so omniscient straw man of the uncaring bastard.

Thankfully all positions that do not support national healthcare fall conveniently into the bucket of uncaring bastard, otherwise we;d have to have real debate about the issues, rather than an unproductive exchange of anecdotal evidence. otherwise i don't know how anyone would even discuss it!

Or if you do care, you don't care enough to want to do anything about it. You like things the way they are. And based on what? An ideological view that quite frankly doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Since most conservatives claim to be Christian, I'd ask where are your Christian values of compassion and helping those in need? Nowhere to be found when money is at stake, apparently.

I'm not a christian.

but if I was I would probably point out that in a world that actually exists, we are faced with the problem of limited resources. And in THAT world, not all peoples needs can be met, and difficult decisions must be made.

We can argue till the cows come home about how much it's going to cost and the national debt yadayadayada, but that's not solving the problem. All it does it confuse and blind people to the real issues. And that's exactly what it's intended to do. And yet, there are no real solutions coming from the other side--nothing that won't benefit the insurance companies.

At least admit it. You don't really give a damn about what happens to anyone other than yourself. If they don't have health care, it's their own fault, and it's not your problem. You don't even grasp the simple fact that you're already paying for those who don't have health care in the form of higher premiums.

/rant

You have unmasked me. Secretly my desire is for people without insurance to be bankrupted and then die horrible deaths.

i salute your astute deconstruction of all people who oppose the federal government being in charge of healthcare.

It's such a simple issue that i'm surprised no one has found us out before now, but i guess the jig is finally up!

And this is a waste of time, really. You're never going to change your thinking.

Indeed. Sadly we cannot all be as open to changing our minds as you are! What a wonderful world it would be if that were the case though, yes?

;)

[AndyP]

Well it could have been an interesting thread, good try Jaime L.

Chatyaya

I think given the polling an listening to people around me, I think your position will win the day or at least the near future.

Raidne

I am wondering if given Roe (or at least some implications form it) it the Court might hold that in a single payer system, that the government might not be able to ration care because that would be an undue burden on the patient/doctor relationship?

[Annelise]

Well it could have been an interesting thread, good try Jaime L.

Aw, don't be defeatist Andy. There's some good stuff in this thread. Pick something and have at it, we're only on page 14.

[awesome possum]

we;d have to have real debate about the issues

Well why don't you actually try that? Or do you consider the snide remarks you've peppered the thread with "real debate"?

[Guy Kilmore]

Well why don't you actually try that? Or do you consider the snide remarks you've peppered the thread with "real debate"?

I have to second this. It is almost feeling trollish.

[AndyP]

Aw, don't be defeatist Andy. There's some good stuff in this thread. Pick something and have at it, we're only on page 14.

The Washington Post

This article illustrates to me the major issue why this is failing. Once one side becomes to wedded to a solution and can't be backed off of it even when shown that is a non-started. The Republicans made the same mistake with Social Security Reform.

"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."

"It's a mystifying thing," he added. "We're forgetting why we are in this."

Another top aide expressed chagrin that a single element in the president's sprawling health-care initiative has become a litmus test for whether the administration is serious about the issue.

"It took on a life of its own," he said.

[The Progressive]

Well why don't you actually try that? Or do you consider the snide remarks you've peppered the thread with "real debate"?

I have to second this. It is almost feeling trollish.

This is a similar pattern after his argument were debunked in several previous incarnations of this subject. So just nod and move along.

The Washington Post

This article illustrates to me the major issue why this is failing. Once one side becomes to wedded to a solution and can't be backed off of it even when shown that is a non-started. The Republicans made the same mistake with Social Security Reform.

Shown to be a non-started? I don't think so. From most polls that I've read about, there's still a slight majority favoring the public option. Given the outright lies and slanders that were generated in the last few months from status quo lobbiest and the rightwing smear machine, that's an incredible testament to the strength of the idea and its popular support.

What we have here is one side making all the concession, while the other side have decided from the beginning to sabotage every meaningful attempt at a serious reform. It is pointless to engage them any further and make further concession for the vague hope of partisan support.

Here's an open challenge .............. present any market-solution counter proposal to the public option and I'll point out how utterly inferior it is compared to the public plan.

[Shryke]

The Washington Post

This article illustrates to me the major issue why this is failing. Once one side becomes to wedded to a solution and can't be backed off of it even when shown that is a non-started. The Republicans made the same mistake with Social Security Reform.

Really? THAT'S what you think the problem is?

Not the people calling Democrats "Hitler" for trying to reform Health Care?

[The Progressive]

I don't think it's that complex, or at least the argument of "complexity" are often made by those who try to muddle the water to preserve the status quo of a market-base system and/or lack the political will to pursue serious reform.

Through good research and diligent data-gathering, we have a good idea about the areas where costs are increasing, where wastes are accumulated, what could be trim and what to emphasize .................. all with viable solutions that were mean-tested by other industrialized countries.

[The Progressive]

Skepticism is of course healthy and desirable, but I sometimes get the feeling that many so-called "wonks" from the right are purposefully using it as a crutch to cast doubt on a very good policy that would remedy the systemic woes that is the American health care system.

It's similar to the debate over global warming, and I wouldn't be surprise if those "wonks" also featured prominently among the deniers camp.

[TrueMetis]

Why does no one ever point out that Costa Rica has better healthcare than the US? You would think it would help to make the point because Costa Rica is a Developing (Third World) country.

[The Progressive]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehne...2009-08-17.html

I personally don't think Boehner yelling at Big Pharma, calling them nancies, appeasers and accusing them of selling out for coming to the table and participating reflects well on him. *shrugs* I admit that I am biased on that point however.

Speaking of the public option, here is a very interesting blog post from The New Republic's Noam Sheiber.

As far as I'm concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical.

Lol, I just thought that sentence needed some highlight.

To add to the point mentioned by Annelise about political maneuvering on Big Pharma by the Obama administration, another piece of the puzzle has been the noticeable silence of Big Business on the need for healthcare reform. Virtually every reputable published analysis came to the inevitable conclusion that it is desperately needed to keep the American economy competitive, but unfortunately ideology still runs deep in that camp. To counter that, the Obama administration has been floating on the table a proposal for the possible delay of the crackdown on offshore corporate tax-havens as a bargaining chip against Big Business cooperation.

[Swordfish]

Swordfish is a witty and articulate troll so I don't mind it. And of course he's not Christian. My home state of Oregon is the least church-going state in the union.

To be fair, some may use the "uncaring bastard" card in their arguments but there are some pretty powerful arguments for reform that are strictly economic. I've mentioned this before but administrative costs for Medicare are around 3% compared to something more like 10-20% for other profit-based entities. Of course there are other arguments against government-run stuff but you can't tell me that isn't a compelling figure.

Administrative costs for who? I will have to look this up, but if I remember correctly, this includes only those costs incurred by the program, and not those incurred by doctors/hospitals trying to DEAL with medicare.

Administrative costs for medicare are also a little squirelly to calculate.

And it also ignores the fact that a lot of administrative cost is dealing with complex insurance regulations.

Medicare costs...

More medicare... Nothing new really, but i know you guys will have some fun with the source, so i'm going to just throw it out there....

[Annelise]

The Washington Post

It's an interesting question. Obviously opposition to the public option has its root in principle for some people, but I'm unclear how true that is for supporters. At a guess, I think the translation is less "we want more government!" and more "there is no free market solution to this problem." In short, it's viewed as our best option at this point. I think you aren't being quite fair when assigning the blame for why the left appears close minded. There's a partisan contingent, sure, just like there is re: conservative objections. But also, the GOP has done poorly at offering alternatives (or they really need a new publicist). But IMO, this has not been their issue and it shows the way there were rushing rushing rushing to get something together and got ripped for a lack of substance when unveiled. This, I think, plays a role as far as the left drawing a line in the sand; the perception that the GOP is just trying to torpedo the effort without offering anything viable in return. Then add in the GOP strategy of late, which while effective enough, is hardly going to win the hearts of liberals. Or many others, it would seem:

But if the country is cautious about Obama’s health plans, it doesn’t seem to trust the Republican Party at all on the subject. Just 21 percent approve of the GOP’s handling of health care, versus 62 percent who disapprove.

*********

Polls suggest that support is dwindling for widespread changes to the health-care system, and Democratic lawmakers have begun second-guessing the bipartisan strategy advocated by Obama and being pursued in the Senate Finance Committee.

Polls remain solidly in favor of an overhaul (60% according to a poll from yesterday). It has gone down 10 points since April. ("complete overhaul" is down 12 points since April). As well, % over specifics on how to pay for it and how exactly to approach it have gone down, sure. That is only to be expected at this stage of drafting and negotiating, IMO. Furthermore:

One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of “death panels†or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32464936/ns/po...cs-white_house/

None of this is to say everything is okay and on track. I think everyone would agree that tackling this was always going to be a hard, bumpy ride. I just think that the situation is being overblown as unduly negative, at the moment. The public rightly doesn't know what the bottom line *is*, because we don't have one yet. But you may well be right that the public option won't even make that cut. There's enough public support to make the argument, but not enough to browbeat with it so I don't see why the pols who are against it would change their minds, short of some political wizardry.

[The Iceman of the North]

Swordfish, is the administrative costs for doctors different for Medicare than any private insurance scheme?

[Annelise]

Following up on Big Pharma and Boehner because it's a little like bizarro world to me. BigPhama responds to Boehner's letter below & I think they are continuing to be very shrewd. And doing a far better job on image management that Boehner who seems to be helping them instead of hurting them w/ his criticisms.

“At the end of the day, comprehensive healthcare reform is good for patients, the economy and the future of our country,†Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said in an interview with The Hill.

Asked about Boehner’s “appeasement†accusation, Johnson called for more civility in the debate.

“Emotions are riding high on both sides and we are not going to fan the flames,†he said.

PhRMA also released a statement from Johnson on Tuesday that said healthcare reform, if done right, would be expand coverage to millions of uninsured or underinsured Americans and change the course of healthcare in the U.S. toward real prevention and disease control, instead of just damage control.

The statement said PhRMA is “proud†of its efforts to advance bipartisan healthcare reform that is consistent with the group’s belief that every American should have access to high-quality, affordable healthcare.

“In the end, we believe our companies' shared goal will benefit patients, the economy and the future of America by fostering continued medical progress that could lead to new cures for debilitating and oftentimes deadly diseases,†Johnson said in the statement.

Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized PhRMA in a letter Monday to the group’s president and CEO, former GOP Rep. Billy Tauzin (La.). The letter criticized PhRMA for joining and spending advertising money on a coalition devoted to building support for a healthcare overhaul. Boehner also urged Tauzin to reconsider his support for Democrats’ healthcare overhaul.

[...]

PhRMA has joined Health Economy Now, a coalition that is spending tens of millions of dollars on an advertising campaign aimed at convincing Americans to support a broad restructuring of the country’s healthcare system.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/phrma-...2009-08-18.html

[Annelise]

but there are some pretty powerful arguments for reform that are strictly economic.

On that topic ..

From 2000 to 2009, the worker's share for individual and family policies more than doubled. For an individual, the cost climbed from $434 to $922. Family policy costs for the worker went from $1,850 to $3,836.

Employers' costs also ramped up significantly. For individual policies, the contribution went from $2,164 to $3,388 -- a 57 percent jump. For family policies, the increase was sharper: a 72 percent spike from $4,686 to $8,077.

Combining the worker and business costs, the total increase on family policies was 82 percent, while the individual policy cost jumped 66 percent.

During the same period, median earnings in Louisiana went from $20,467 to $26,688, a 30 percent increase.

The insurance numbers come from data compiled by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which collects information from both employers and households. The income measure is taken from the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index....xml&coll=1

[Guest Raidne]

I think given the polling an listening to people around me, I think your position will win the day or at least the near future.

Ahahaha. Do you still live in Houston? If we're listening to the people around you, the United States should be racially segregated, federal income tax is unconstitutional, and everyone should own a Hummer.

I am wondering if given Roe (or at least some implications form it) it the Court might hold that in a single payer system, that the government might not be able to ration care because that would be an undue burden on the patient/doctor relationship?

I have no idea how to get from A to B there. Is the doctor/patient relationship dealt with in some way other than emphasizing its private nature in the Roe opinion? And as far as that goes, you could still have whatever relationship with your doctor that you want in a single-payer system, your government insurance just might not pay for it. I may be misunderstanding - please elaborate if necessary.

On the larger issue, I'm starting to freak out. Can someone, anyone tell me what I'm supposed to do for health care when I retire???? I can't believe I haven't thought about it before. Chats, you must have some plan for this? No? Bueller?

Also, Chats, please, if you don't think of yourself as a fiscal conservative, I don't know who does. I used to think of you that way too, but now I'm convinced your belief in a just world is stronger than any mere political ideology, and just because it's correlated with conservativism, it doesn't make it the same thing.

Let's do a litmus test:

I think that people tend to get what they deserve.

1 - strongly agree

2 - somewhat agree

3 - neither agree nor disagree

4 - somewhat disagree

5 - strongly disagree

[14th Dragon]

On the larger issue, I'm starting to freak out. Can someone, anyone tell me what I'm supposed to do for health care when I retire???? I can't believe I haven't thought about it before. Chats, you must have some plan for this? No? Bueller?

There is always die.

[Annelise]

Save, save save. Or you could see which other country wants you for your skillz.

"Damnit, more Americans! Eh, give them some water and turn them back; we're overrun already." :P

My Dad has excellent insurance (including Exec U Care), hasn't paid anything in the last 20 years he said. But he only has it for another few years and I think that's one reason why he's on board with reform. He's worried about what he'll have to pay once it's gone.