Can the US afford socialized medicine?

[Valjean]

Eliminate, or more heavily regulate the health insurance industry and cost of business will go down for everyone. Healthcare in the US of A is waaaaay overpriced. The health insurance industry helps to uphold these artificially, and often arbitrarily, exorbitant prices.

You're talking about a Bismarck System. Yes, that would be a huge improvement, but the big insurance companies will stop at nothing to block it.

What I and many other people are advocating is paying for health care services through our taxes.

This would work. Either a single payer or a socialized system would clearly reduce costs for everyone. Americans seem to think this is a controversal idea; that it's something new. It isn't. We're trying to re-invent the wheel. Countries around the globe have been using these systems for decades, and they work. They get better care at half the price; at a fraction of the government expense.

Americans are apparently not aware that the government -- their taxes -- is already subsidising healthcare. A greater prcentage of our income taxes are spent on healthcare than in any other country on Earth -- and we get crap for it. Just look at the GDP% tables on healthcare spending. Republicans complain about costs?! -- the proposals they're opposing would cut government costs by 2/3ds! Taxpayers would not pay more -- they'd get rebates.
The republicans are not protecting the interests of the American people, they're protecting the interests of the Insurance industry, which funds their re-election campaigns. :yes:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I don't understand is why the Republicans, instead of proposing fixes to our system that is broken, have only opposed health care reform? Granted Democrats are busy fighting amongst each other, but the Republicans haven't been a part of the solution either.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Paying for insurance through taxes is flawed. People who actually give the government money probably already have health insurance. People who pay the government nothing every year in taxes would in fact receive free health care at others expense.

The sliding scale at our local clinic requires everyone to pay something, unlike our tax program.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

We need a balanced budget amendment and then decide what we want and how we are going to pay for it.

Thank you. It's about time someone here realizes we can't just keep pulling money out of thin air, no matter how wonderful the cause is.

 

[Valjean]

What I don't understand is why the Republicans, instead of proposing fixes to our system that is broken, have only opposed health care reform? Granted Democrats are busy fighting amongst each other, but the Republicans haven't been a part of the solution either.

The Republicans operate from a "government is bad" philosophy, and seek to demonstrate this by undermining it then, when it doesn't work, pointing and saying "I told you so."

Republicans defund departments, they staff them with incompetents or even with administrative cronies bent on destroying them. They want to "strangle government", to "drown it in the bathtub." Republicans block all attempts at reform -- attempts to fix the departments they broke, and they have Americans believing that incompetence is the natural state of government.

Government worked in the past, and it works abroad. If Republicans hadn''t gutted our educational and news systems Americans might realise this.

 

[Reverend Rick]

And another thing.....

Republicans have offered ideas on how to reduce medical expenses. Why do the democrats rail against tort reform? Doctors spend a fortune in malpractice insurance.

One thing both sides agree on is eliminating pre-existing conditions. Why can't we at least do that?

I want to see catastrophic health insurance that pays for everything over ten grand. Check ups and small complaints should be paid for out of pocket.

 

[Valjean]

And another thing.....

Republicans have offered ideas on how to reduce medical expenses. Why do the democrats rail against tort reform? Doctors spend a fortune in malpractice insurance.

One thing both sides agree on is eliminating pre-existing conditions. Why can't we at least do that?

I want to see catastrophic health insurance that pays for everything over ten grand. Check ups and small complaints should be paid for out of pocket.

Torts account for a fraction of 1% of healthcare costs, RR. Don't be obtuse.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Torts account for a fraction of 1% of healthcare costs, RR. Don't be obtuse.

Site? I would think it would be a double digit figure.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Paying for insurance through taxes is flawed. People who actually give the government money probably already have health insurance. People who pay the government nothing every year in taxes would in fact receive free health care at others expense.

What is so flawed about when it's been shown to work? And paying taxes that lazy bums leech up, it's a part of life. There is no such thing as a guaranteed system. There will always be people who find loop holes, and will live off the system. But the working class should not suffer because of the laziness of others.
But how the Dutch do it, and I would support a similar system, is a part of their premiums are taken out of their taxes, and they still pay a monthly charge. This way, people are still paying for it on their own, and less people are leeching off the system.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I want to see catastrophic health insurance that pays for everything over ten grand. Check ups and small complaints should be paid for out of pocket.

This has been how I have felt for a long time. My local clinic has a three month wait if you want to see your doctor for something serious. Why? When people are on government run health plans or carry no-deductible insurance they tend to run to the clinic for every sneeze and sniffle. The rest of us run to WalMart, buy a bottle of NyQuil, and get a good night's sleep. If everyone had to pay for that run to the clinic they would try taking care of the little stuff themselves first.

 

[Smoke]

Paying for insurance through taxes is flawed. People who actually give the government money probably already have health insurance. People who pay the government nothing every year in taxes would in fact receive free health care at others expense.

That's how taxes work, Rick. I pay my taxes to support the public schools even though I don't have any kids. I pay my taxes to support the military even though I'm opposed to just about everything our military does. I pay my taxes to support roads I'll never drive on, art I'll never see, bureaucracies I'll never use, pensions I'll never collect. That's taxes for you.

Of course, I do benefit from the fact that my neighbors can get to work, can send their kids to school, can go to university themselves, can go to parks and museums, and so on. I also benefit from public health programs. I don't have tuberculosis, AIDS, swine flu, hepatitis or measles, so provided I'm a selfish git who doesn't give a damn about anybody but myself, why should I care whether the people who have those problems can get treatment? Maybe because it benefits me if my neighbors and co-workers and clerks in stores aren't running around with infectious diseases. Maybe I benefit from increased productivity when more people are healthy. Maybe I benefit, at least indirectly, from increased tax revenues when more people are working.

The thing is, no matter how much you try to convince yourself you're an island unto yourself, no matter how little you give a damn about your neighbors, when everything's said and done you're still part of a community and a nation whether you like it or not, and the welfare of that community and nation impacts directly on you.

So, we have two objections so far to universal healthcare:

1) A fear that the quality of healthcare available to the well-off will deteriorate. So far this fear seems irrational, since nobody's been able to give any specifics.

2) An ideological opposition to government as such.

Are there any more reasons?

 

[Darkness]

Obama’s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.



Why do you hate America, Rev. Rick?

:slap:[/QUOTE]

I am a little confused by your math. President Obama inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. The federal budget the Bush Administration submitted for 2009 was 3.10 trillion dollars. President Obama's budget for 2010 is 3.55 trillion dollars. How has Obama tripled the debt? If by some twisted logic you want to lay all the blame on President Obama for the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, be my guest, but you will be devoid of all reality. With a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit the projects for nominal public debt should be over 20 trillion USD by 2019, without any of the Obama Administration's spending factored in.

Paying for insurance through taxes is flawed. People who actually give the government money probably already have health insurance. People who pay the government nothing every year in taxes would in fact receive free health care at others expense.

I am starting to think the Russian term "Capitalist Pig" more accurately reflects Conservative American, than I previously thought.

 

[Smoke]

This has been how I have felt for a long time. My local clinic has a three month wait if you want to see your doctor for something serious. Why? When people are on government run health plans or carry no-deductible insurance they tend to run to the clinic for every sneeze and sniffle. The rest of us run to WalMart, buy a bottle of NyQuil, and get a good night's sleep. If everyone had to pay for that run to the clinic they would try taking care of the little stuff themselves first.

It's hard to address your complaint without knowing something about your clinic and your information. You don't say who runs it, who uses it, how you obtained your data, or anything like that.

However, it's clear that if this information is correct, your local clinic is run in a very odd manner. I'm having trouble imagining what sort of clinic would have a policy under which, if you come in with kidney stones or malaria, for instance, you're waved off and told to make an appointment in three months' time because they have important cases of the sniffles to attend to.

 

[Valjean]

Site? I would think it would be a double digit figure.

Come on RR. You're being deceived by the Insurance industry and proponents like Sen Mitch McConnell. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it's a conspiracy.

The fact is, those states that have implemented various kinds of tort reform have seen no savings at all, and some, like Texas, have seen massive increases in healthcare and insurance costs. Any savings seem to mysteriously find their way into the pockets of the insurance executives. They don't trickle down to the consumer.

There have been dozens of studies confirming this. You can do a google search. The U of Alabama, Birmington study comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office say Tort Reform will save "practically no money."

Even in a conservative publication like Business Week (The Truth About Malpractice Lawsuits. Catherine Arnst) you'll find: "Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 Trillion annual healthcare bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total."

And it's not like these malpractice lawsuits are frivolous. Anywhere from one to several hundred thousand people die annully from medical errors. Google the '06 Harvard study -- they found 97% of cases meritorious.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

It's hard to address your complaint without knowing something about your clinic and your information. You don't say who runs it, who uses it, how you obtained your data, or anything like that.

However, it's clear that if this information is correct, your local clinic is run in a very odd manner. I'm having trouble imagining what sort of clinic would have a policy under which, if you come in with kidney stones or malaria, for instance, you're waved off and told to make an appointment in three months' time because they have important cases of the sniffles to attend to.

Well they do! They just tell you to get into the emergency room if you can't wait three months.

 

[Smoke]

Here are some more figures, broken down by sex this time:

We totally rule. For these six health outcomes, we're getting roughly the same results as Cuba, but per person, the Cuban system costs less than an eighteenth of what ours costs. You can tell a great country by how much money it can waste!

 

[Reverend Rick]

So how do we determine if we can afford something? (attempting to stay on topic)

I guess first we have to determine what something costs. Just because something is cheaper does not mean we can afford it. Cadillacs are on sale right now, we can save a bundle.

The next step after arriving at a cost figure is to take a look at our available funds to purchase something.

WE ARE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYE BALLS :slap:

 

[T-Dawg]

So how do we determine if we can afford something? (attempting to stay on topic)

I guess first we have to determine what something costs. Just because something is cheaper does not mean we can afford it. Cadillacs are on sale right now, we can save a bundle.

The next step after arriving at a cost figure is to take a look at our available funds to purchase something.

WE ARE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYE BALLS :slap:

Now Rick, you've been spouting this same nonsense no matter how many times people address it.

If we're in debt, why are we paying MORE to keep this system? If you were paying a monthly fee for a magazine subscription or something, and you found out that another dealer was offering the same magazine for half the price, and you were looking for ways to save money, would you stick with your current dealer and say "bah, I can't afford the cheaper one!"?

 

[Magic Man]

So how do we determine if we can afford something? (attempting to stay on topic)

I guess first we have to determine what something costs. Just because something is cheaper does not mean we can afford it. Cadillacs are on sale right now, we can save a bundle.

You don't seem to be understanding this concept (unsurprisingly). Here's the real analogy: You pay $600/month for a 7-year-old Hyundai. Someone offers to buy that from you and sell you a brand new Cadillac. It would be a 2010 Cadillac for $300/month. Essentially, you'd have a brand new Cadillac instead of a 7-year-old Hyundai, and you'd be paying $300/month, rather than $600. Now, can you afford that?

See, the thing you're missing is that we're already paying for healthcare. What we're proposing is instituting a system where we are still paying for healthcare, but we're paying half as much as we are now. We're not adding anything.

The next step after arriving at a cost figure is to take a look at our available funds to purchase something.

Except that we're not purchasing anything. We're replacing an expensive system we already have with a much less expensive system.

WE ARE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYE BALLS :slap:

That's true. So, then you should be all about saving the country tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, shouldn't you? By my math, spending $600 billion dollars on something instead of $1.2 trillion (and getting better results) reduces the debt by $600 billion dollars.

 

[Smoke]

So how do we determine if we can afford something? (attempting to stay on topic)

I guess first we have to determine what something costs. Just because something is cheaper does not mean we can afford it. Cadillacs are on sale right now, we can save a bundle.

The next step after arriving at a cost figure is to take a look at our available funds to purchase something.

WE ARE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYE BALLS :slap:

Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot afford to spend less money than we spend now?