LGP Political Discussion Thread

[HomerPenguin]

Are you asking about right now when people can't even afford their own houses and are afraid for their jobs? That's a silly question.

Is it your contention that the problem of vast numbers of uninsured citizens has just arisen in the past 9 months? What were people with means doing before the economic meltdown?

I don't understand the question.

People haven't been scrambling to afford their houses and fearful of losing their jobs forever, have they? Yet before the current economic crisis people weren't donating money to fund health care for the poor in significant enough numbers to alleviate the problem. You've explained what might be stopping them now; what was stopping them before?

[pittsoccer33]

bhaw: Okay, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. I'd rather see a universal/single payer system. I think this was what Obama initially wanted but then people started freaking out and this became a compromise (and not a good one).

See, I don't think he ever had any intention of going that far. Too many corporations to appease.

Single Payer? We might not ever get a public option out of this.

What exactly is it about a single payer health insurance plan do you think will be most beneficial?

[GaryRissling]

Gary... those "preferential rates" are called business. Why do you get cheaper rates at Costco? Because you are buying 900 bananas instead of 2. I have no problem with that as it makes total business sense... which is what health care and insurance is... a business. That doesn't sound very conservative of you

I understand what you're saying, but because of this structure, we have perfectly healthy hypochondriacs going to the physician's every time they get a sniffle. This structure drives the costs of prescription drugs, visits, x-rays, etc - - simple services that should be getting less expensive in real terms every year instead of more.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that the free market works to improve efficiency and lower costs in the healthcare industry (in terms of the cost of actual care)? If so, what can you use as an example? If not, why?
I don't believe it does, and that is what we need to fix. Why don't we insure our homes, houses, boats, etc this way?

[MWB]

See, I don't think he ever had any intention of going that far. Too many corporations to appease.

Single Payer? We might not ever get a public option out of this.

What exactly is it about a single payer health insurance plan do you think will be most beneficial?

Would help cut health care costs dramatically because private insurers would be eliminated.

[doublem]

It provides coverage for everyone, everyone pays for it, and removes some of the problems with insurance companies. In a single payer system you can still have private companies. Single payer doesn't have to be socialized like the U.K. or V.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-pay ... ementation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HomerPenguin]

What exactly is it about a single payer health insurance plan do you think will be most beneficial?

There's empirical evidence to suggest that costs would come down and outcomes would improve or remain steady. The health outcomes for Canada's poor are significantly better than they are for the poor here; outcomes for the wealthy here are better than those in Canada primarily due to better screening and more use of expensive and invasive procedures, but in my mind a single-payer system than permits those with means to buy additional coverage would rectify that.

Mostly I have a moral objection to a society that washes its hands of its sick poor. It says something about who we are.

[MWB]

I understand what you're saying, but because of this structure, we have perfectly healthy hypochondriacs going to the physician's every time they get a sniffle. This structure drives the costs of prescription drugs, visits, x-rays, etc - - simple services that should be getting less expensive in real terms every year instead of more.

We certainly do. Lots and lots of kids go to the doctor now for ADD or ADHD and end up being prescribed a drug for it. While there certainly are a few who this is necessary and beneficial for, many others are just kids being kids, but put on drugs now because it's easy and cheap.

[MWB]

Other info on single payer:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GaryRissling]

I understand what you're saying, but because of this structure, we have perfectly healthy hypochondriacs going to the physician's every time they get a sniffle. This structure drives the costs of prescription drugs, visits, x-rays, etc - - simple services that should be getting less expensive in real terms every year instead of more.

We certainly do. Lots and lots of kids go to the doctor now for ADD or ADHD and end up being prescribed a drug for it. While there certainly are a few who this is necessary and beneficial for, many others are just kids being kids, but put on drugs now because it's easy and cheap.

Agreed. But why then would you favor a plan that would simply crystalize these failings of the current system, and put an even greater disproportionate amount of pay in the pockets of the Big Pharma at taxpayer expense?

We need less insurance, not more.

[pittsoccer33]

I have a torn ACL in my left knee. I tore it playing soccer and have never had it repaired (I didn't have health insurance when it happened, so I choosing an employer with a good benefits package was imperative). I could live the rest of my life just fine without it, but I'll never be able to play soccer, basketball, or football again.

Highmark will cover it for a max of $1,000 out of my pocket, probably lower. Would a single payer plan cover it, since it is not needed for me to maintain a healthy lifestyle? That doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

[MWB]

I understand what you're saying, but because of this structure, we have perfectly healthy hypochondriacs going to the physician's every time they get a sniffle. This structure drives the costs of prescription drugs, visits, x-rays, etc - - simple services that should be getting less expensive in real terms every year instead of more.

We certainly do. Lots and lots of kids go to the doctor now for ADD or ADHD and end up being prescribed a drug for it. While there certainly are a few who this is necessary and beneficial for, many others are just kids being kids, but put on drugs now because it's easy and cheap.

Agreed. But why then would you favor a plan that would simply crystalize these failings of the current system, and put an even greater disproportionate amount of pay in the pockets of the Big Pharma at taxpayer expense?

We need less insurance, not more.

A single payer plan? That's what I'm leaning towards. One that would limit insurance.

[doublem]

I have a torn ACL in my left knee. I tore it playing soccer and have never had it repaired (I didn't have health insurance when it happened, so I choosing an employer with a good benefits package was imperative). I could live the rest of my life just fine without it, but I'll never be able to play soccer, basketball, or football again.

Highmark will cover it for a max of $1,000 out of my pocket, probably lower. Would a single payer plan cover it, since it is not needed for me to maintain a healthy lifestyle? That doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

How can someone not in the health field answer this question? If you value playing sports I guess you would get surgery, if not, I guess you wouldn't.

[HomerPenguin]

I have a torn ACL in my left knee. I tore it playing soccer and have never had it repaired (I didn't have health insurance when it happened, so I choosing an employer with a good benefits package was imperative). I could live the rest of my life just fine without it, but I'll never be able to play soccer, basketball, or football again.

Highmark will cover it for a max of $1,000 out of my pocket, probably lower. Would a single payer plan cover it, since it is not needed for me to maintain a healthy lifestyle? That doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

So if single payer wouldn't pay for it, but you could obtain supplemental insurance that would (less the $1000 you'd be out of pocket anyway), either through your employer or on your own, you'd be OK with that?

[GaryRissling]

A single payer plan? That's what I'm leaning towards. One that would limit insurance.

Yeah, but it takes the market out of the picture as well which drives down costs, improves efficiency, and drives innovation.

[HomerPenguin]

A single payer plan? That's what I'm leaning towards. One that would limit insurance.

Yeah, but it takes the market out of the picture as well which drives down costs, improves efficiency, and drives innovation.

Aren't we innovating pretty well right now in medical science, despite the fact that health care is anything but a free market?

What kind of free market do you envision that doesn't allow consumers to organize into collectives to pool resources and share risk? And if your free market would permit that behavior, how does it prevent those collectives from becoming massive, market-distorting insurance giants all over again?

[doublem]

A single payer plan? That's what I'm leaning towards. One that would limit insurance.

Yeah, but it takes the market out of the picture as well which drives down costs, improves efficiency, and drives innovation.

I don't know about that. If we are talking about health care treatment, has it worked currently? Why hasn't the market been able to drive down costs, 119% over the last decade is pretty high increase, I'm sure you will say "government has it's hands in it", but America is the only country in the world that doesn't universal care.

[MWB]

A single payer plan? That's what I'm leaning towards. One that would limit insurance.

Yeah, but it takes the market out of the picture as well which drives down costs, improves efficiency, and drives innovation.

From my limited understanding of a single payer system it would dramatically improve efficiency over what is currently in place. Costs would be set based on a pre-negotiated agreement.

I think there would still be a place for innovation because doctors would still be trying to find cures for things. Companies would still be trying to produce effective instruments to sell to hospitals.

[pittsoccer33]

I have a torn ACL in my left knee. I tore it playing soccer and have never had it repaired (I didn't have health insurance when it happened, so I choosing an employer with a good benefits package was imperative). I could live the rest of my life just fine without it, but I'll never be able to play soccer, basketball, or football again.

Highmark will cover it for a max of $1,000 out of my pocket, probably lower. Would a single payer plan cover it, since it is not needed for me to maintain a healthy lifestyle? That doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

So if single payer wouldn't pay for it, but you could obtain supplemental insurance that would (less the $1000 you'd be out of pocket anyway), either through your employer or on your own, you'd be OK with that?

I don't think tax payers should pay to fix my knee, I'm the one who tore it. I doubt you want to send me some money to put towards the surgery. So I'm opposed to it being covered in that manner.

If that type of plan was forced on me and I was not covered, I'd be angry that my tax dollars aren't going to help me when I finally need it.

For $24 a month I am fully covered, and in a worst case scenerio I'd be forced to come up with $2500 to pay for whatever treatment I need. Where I work I have choices between eight regional HMOs, a Highmark PPO (my choice), an exclusive provider option, and an HSA. A federal one size fits all plan would never offer this many options.

[MWB]

A federal one size fits all plan would never offer this many options.

How do you know this?

[HomerPenguin]

I don't think tax payers should pay to fix my knee, I'm the one who tore it. I doubt you want to send me some money to put towards the surgery. So I'm opposed to it being covered in that manner.

If that type of plan was forced on me, I'd be angry that my tax dollars aren't going to help me when I finally need it.

For $24 a month I am fully covered, and in a worst case scenerio I'd be forced to come up with $2500 to pay for whatever treatment I need. Where I work I have choices between eight regional HMOs, a Highmark PPO (my choice), an exclusive provider option, and an HSA. A federal one size fits all plan would never offer this many options.

That's great for you. Do you suppose that an uninsured woman with breast cancer is comforted by your good health coverage?

[GaryRissling]

From my limited understanding of a single payer system it would dramatically improve efficiency over what is currently in place. Costs would be set based on a pre-negotiated agreement.

I believe that those two sentences are highly contradictory.

[doublem]

I have a torn ACL in my left knee. I tore it playing soccer and have never had it repaired (I didn't have health insurance when it happened, so I choosing an employer with a good benefits package was imperative). I could live the rest of my life just fine without it, but I'll never be able to play soccer, basketball, or football again.

Highmark will cover it for a max of $1,000 out of my pocket, probably lower. Would a single payer plan cover it, since it is not needed for me to maintain a healthy lifestyle? That doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

So if single payer wouldn't pay for it, but you could obtain supplemental insurance that would (less the $1000 you'd be out of pocket anyway), either through your employer or on your own, you'd be OK with that?

I don't think tax payers should pay to fix my knee, I'm the one who tore it. I doubt you want to send me some money to put towards the surgery. So I'm opposed to it being covered in that manner.

If that type of plan was forced on me and I was not covered, I'd be angry that my tax dollars aren't going to help me when I finally need it.

For $24 a month I am fully covered, and in a worst case scenerio I'd be forced to come up with $2500 to pay for whatever treatment I need. Where I work I have choices between eight regional HMOs, a Highmark PPO (my choice), an exclusive provider option, and an HSA. A federal one size fits all plan would never offer this many options.

Tax payers already pay for Medicare, isn't it the same thing. I don't want to pay for two wars and bailouts, should I be able to not pay for those? Why, do people get upset about paying for health care costs but not anything else?

[pittsoccer33]

I don't think tax payers should pay to fix my knee, I'm the one who tore it. I doubt you want to send me some money to put towards the surgery. So I'm opposed to it being covered in that manner.

If that type of plan was forced on me, I'd be angry that my tax dollars aren't going to help me when I finally need it.

For $24 a month I am fully covered, and in a worst case scenerio I'd be forced to come up with $2500 to pay for whatever treatment I need. Where I work I have choices between eight regional HMOs, a Highmark PPO (my choice), an exclusive provider option, and an HSA. A federal one size fits all plan would never offer this many options.

That's great for you. Do you suppose that an uninsured woman with breast cancer is comforted by your good health coverage?

There you go again with the sad sack cancer story. I would like to know 1) how many people die each year in the US because they have no coverage, and 2) how many people in single payer nations that HAVE cancer coverage but die on waiting lists.

[HomerPenguin]

From my limited understanding of a single payer system it would dramatically improve efficiency over what is currently in place. Costs would be set based on a pre-negotiated agreement.

I believe that those two sentences are highly contradictory.

Why? Is it hard to imagine that, in terms of generating an efficient outcome, current system < single-payer < totally free market?

[MWB]

From my limited understanding of a single payer system it would dramatically improve efficiency over what is currently in place. Costs would be set based on a pre-negotiated agreement.

I believe that those two sentences are highly contradictory.

It would be more efficient because less would be spent on overhead, billing, sales, marketing.... many things that insurance companies spend health care money on. Money would go to the hospital/doctor for services, not to the insurance company for all of these things plus services. The cost of the service would be set.