LGP Political Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by pittsoccer33 »

doublem wrote: I don't want to pay for two wars, should I be able to not pay for those?
Tell your rep to vote on this bill and you might not have to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... x_Fund_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

pittsoccer33 wrote:1) how many people die each year in the US because they have no coverage
A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by doublem »

pittsoccer33 wrote:
HomerPenguin wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote: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.
I just posted this yesterday or no one would response. http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 18 is too many for the supposed greatest country in the world.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by pittsoccer33 »

MWB wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote:1) how many people die each year in the US because they have no coverage
A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not to be callous, but that is less than 0.006% of the population. While that is unfortunate and I would like to see that rectified, I hardly think it is worth legislating the largest transfer of power to the federal government in our 233 year history.

Other options must exist.
Last edited by pittsoccer33 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GaryRissling
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by GaryRissling »

HomerPenguin wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:
MWB wrote: 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?

Frankly, yes, quite. To use Obama's words, FedEx and UPS are fine, it's always the post office that has problems.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by doublem »

pittsoccer33 wrote:
MWB wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote:1) how many people die each year in the US because they have no coverage
A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not to be callous, but that is less than 0.006% of the population. While that is unfortunate and I would like to see that rectified, I hardly think it is worth legislating largest transfer of power to the federal government in our 233 year history.

Other options must exist.
Name them? What number of dead people that can't get health care isn't okay with you?
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by pittsoccer33 »

doublem wrote:
Name them? What number of dead people that can't get health care isn't okay with you?
I will not accept the premise of that question the way you phrase it.

If these people are truely too poor to receive coverage, why are they not on medicaid? Reforming and (if really needed) expanding medicaid would seem easier to do than forming a massive new program (disregard the fact that medicaid, like medicare and SS, are running out of funding).

Allow interstate competition, expand tax deductions, create low premium catastrophic insurance plans.
HomerPenguin
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10884
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:50 am
Location: ...

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by HomerPenguin »

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

Frankly, yes, quite. To use Obama's words, FedEx and UPS are fine, it's always the post office that has problems.
Then why are HC costs in single-payer nations half of what they are here per capita? Why is Medicare more efficient than the private system?
HomerPenguin
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10884
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:50 am
Location: ...

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by HomerPenguin »

pittsoccer33 wrote:If these people are truely too poor to receive coverage, why are they not on medicaid? Reforming and (if really needed) expanding medicaid would seem easier to do than forming a massive new program (disregard the fact that medicaid, like medicare and SS, are running out of funding).
You know, I think we can agree on this point. Improving and expanding Medicaid would be preferable to the mess they're about to gift the insurance industry with.
Allow interstate competition
You're opposed to the right of states to regulate the health insurance industry?
create low premium catastrophic insurance plans.
Isn't that government intervention?
GaryRissling
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by GaryRissling »

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

Frankly, yes, quite. To use Obama's words, FedEx and UPS are fine, it's always the post office that has problems.
Then why are HC costs in single-payer nations half of what they are here per capita? Why is Medicare more efficient than the private system?
As I said earlier, I don't believe we are allowing market forces to work in this country. Efficiency is secondary to sweetheart deals between hospital administrators and vendors. A free market wouldn't allow that to happen, but a single-payer system will finance these inefficiencies. The current system is superior than a single-payer system simply because it does reward success (i.e., breakthroughs) in a ways that a single-payer system likely wouldn't be able to.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by doublem »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 59516.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by doublem »

A free market wouldn't allow that to happen
How do you know this?
The current system is superior than a single-payer system simply because it does reward success (i.e., breakthroughs) in a ways that a single-payer system likely wouldn't be able to.
The problem is that it may reward success in terms of breakthroughs, technology, but how would the free market be able to curb growing rates in insurance costs and that is the problem. The cost in other countries are a lot lower then in the U.S. and you could say we have the most "free market" system.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

GaryRissling wrote:The current system is superior than a single-payer system simply because it does reward success (i.e., breakthroughs) in a ways that a single-payer system likely wouldn't be able to.
I find it hard to believe that a single payer system would limit how much scientists and doctors push to make breakthroughs.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.

It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.

Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ron`
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10037
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Central PA

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by Ron` »

HomerPenguin wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:Aren't you the same guy who bristles every time the Obama administration is compared to the Carter administration?
Am I? I thought I was the guy who couldn't believe people still have PTSD over a presidency that ended 30 years ago.
Ehem, you brought up Reagan.... never mind...
Ron`
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10037
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Central PA

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by Ron` »

Hockeynut! wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?
Medicare along with social security are both poster childs why the american populous should beware of a government run health care plan..... That is the point, plain and simple.
Last edited by Ron` on Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ron`
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10037
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Central PA

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by Ron` »

Hockeynut! wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
Hockeynut! wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?
Works for me.
If you mean that, then I can totally understand where you're coming from. It's the people who rally around medicare and fight tooth and nail against medicare cuts who are also against universal health insurance that confuse me.
It's this simple, the current medicare recipients contributed to this country under a promise by the government for earning that medicare, along with Social Security.... Because they mismanaged it they should be denied or dropped in coverage? Exactly why the american people should not carte blanche believe that this plan is in their best interests long term....
Ron`
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 10037
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Central PA

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by Ron` »

MWB wrote:
GaryRissling wrote:
MWB wrote: 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.
That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

Ron` wrote:That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.
Do you disagree that cutting the insurance companies out of the process would make the health care system more efficient?
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
Posts: 28740
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by bhaw »

MWB wrote:
Ron` wrote:That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.
Do you disagree that cutting the insurance companies out of the process would make the health care system more efficient?
Insurance will never go away. All we can do is change what they insure.

The only way to guarantee insurance goes away is to provide unlimited care to anyone in any situation for free.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

bhaw wrote:
MWB wrote:
Ron` wrote:That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.
Do you disagree that cutting the insurance companies out of the process would make the health care system more efficient?
Insurance will never go away. All we can do is change what they insure.

The only way to guarantee insurance goes away is to provide unlimited care to anyone in any situation for free.
If there were a single payer system that would cut out insurance companies for a large portion of the population. If people then wanted to get supplemental insurance for things that wouldn't be covered then that would be there still. Again, I've only just started really looking at a single payer system so I certainly am not claiming to have all the answers.
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
Posts: 28740
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by bhaw »

right... there will always be insurance tho.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

bhaw wrote:right... there will always be insurance tho.
But is everyone paying insurance companies and paying for those inefficiencies the same as a small portion of the people doing so for supplemental insurance? My point, very simply, is that it could be a way to reduce health care costs significantly.
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
Posts: 28740
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by bhaw »

MWB wrote:
bhaw wrote:right... there will always be insurance tho.
But is everyone paying insurance companies and paying for those inefficiencies the same as a small portion of the people doing so for supplemental insurance? My point, very simply, is that it could be a way to reduce health care costs significantly.
I'm pretty sure that there will still be the same number of people paying for it. Pretty much everyone here who works has supplemental insurance. And it's actually more common for people here to have supplemental insurance even if they don't have an employer plan.
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
Posts: 28740
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by bhaw »

MWB wrote:
bhaw wrote:right... there will always be insurance tho.
But is everyone paying insurance companies and paying for those inefficiencies the same as a small portion of the people doing so for supplemental insurance? My point, very simply, is that it could be a way to reduce health care costs significantly.
To reduce costs significantly... stop letting every a hole sue a doctor for any little thing that happens while they are trying to help you. A good chunk of the mark up is due to the ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums. That is also why there are fewer and fewer private practices. The malpractice insurance is unaffordable to the small practices, so doctors go to the large clinics and hospitals that can afford it, which are ultimately ruled by a corporation and board of governors that know nothing at all about medicine.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
Posts: 15747
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Healthcare Reform Act of 2009

Post by MWB »

bhaw wrote:
MWB wrote:
bhaw wrote:right... there will always be insurance tho.
But is everyone paying insurance companies and paying for those inefficiencies the same as a small portion of the people doing so for supplemental insurance? My point, very simply, is that it could be a way to reduce health care costs significantly.
To reduce costs significantly... stop letting every a hole sue a doctor for any little thing that happens while they are trying to help you. A good chunk of the mark up is due to the ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums. That is also why there are fewer and fewer private practices. The malpractice insurance is unaffordable to the small practices, so doctors go to the large clinics and hospitals that can afford it, which are ultimately ruled by a corporation and board of governors that know nothing at all about medicine.
I agree that tort reform is another thing that should be done to help the situation, and could have a significant impact.