Health Care Now

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

Your friend can go work for McDonalds or Safeway 32 hours a week, get health care and have a small paycheck to take home to boot. It is ALWAYS possible to get health care for yourself unless you are flat out bedridden. It is not the government's problem that your friend is unwilling to work a low-paying blue collar job to provide one of the essentials in his life while he looks for better work.

I have a medical condition that requires nearly $50k in treatment every year to allow me to keep walking and using my hands. It is not the government's job to provide that for me; it's my responsibility to do whatever I need to do to have premium health care. Now the UK, on the other hand, who provides health care to their citizens, recently decided that if you don't show immediate improvement on my treatment (which is unusual) then you don't get a second shot at it. Yeah, give me privatized health care ANY DAY over somebody making a decision like that for me.

Not all UHC systems are equivalent. You can't simply say that the UK model is bad, therefore all UHC models are bad. There is in fact quite a range of implementations and iidealogies governing it. Besides, our economy could actually benefit from some form of UHC simply because it would allow companies to not have that in their direct labor costs, which the way it is right now puts our companies at a severe disadvantage to other first world countries.

As far as the low-wage job thing goes, I think that nobody is above working at a grocery store, washing dished, cooking, picking crops, cleaning bathrooms, or mowing grass. NOBODY. That being said, if you don't live in an area with reliable public transportation (or any at all), most of what you make will be eaten up simply by food and transport (car, maintenance, insurance, gas, tags, etc.). Even so, a lot of those jobs are nonexistent in areas they once were because of the illegal immigration problem (flooded labor pool). There is most definitely a structural problem with our economy/society here. You used to be able to provide for yourself quite comfortably if you were willing to work hard, but in many cases that is no longer enough....

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
private insurance is inefficient and should be done away with.

And how exactly is public insurance efficient?

private insurance is unfortunately beset with a bad set of best choices for insurance companies. I'll try to explain this the best i can without getting something longer than most people would bother to read.

Lets outline some preconditions first:

A) most medical expenses will be undertaken regardless of an individuals ability to pay, especially the most expensive ones, ie emergency care. For simplicities sake, we will just assume the all are.

B) given condition A, Health care providers know that they will have to write off a given percentage of their income patients, and will figure this as a cost of doing business and will work it into everyone bills.

C) Insurance companies are for profit firms, and seek to minimize costs and maximize revenues.

D) Individuals can declare bankruptcy.

E) there are may insurance companies.

Now the problem should be pretty obvious already, be I'll explain it anyways.

Lets start with a beginning state where everyone is insured, and people can switch insurance companies at will, and insurance companies can get rid of customers as they choose. Certain patients are expensive to insure (obese smokers with diabetes, for instance), these patients are often uninsured because they are likely poor and cannot afford their insurance. Insurance companies can also choose not to pay out on a given claim, for instance if they can prove (or even claim) someone has a pre-existing condition to the start of their coverage. Often this will involve courts and lawyers, so the insurance companies will only contest claims where the cost of a lawyer and the probability adjusted cost of a judgment in favor of the customer are less than the projected cost of just covering the customer, or in other words, only the most expensive claims.

In the first case, after heavy medical bills, a much larger portion is going to be unable to pay. In the second case, the customer/patient is, in addition to being charged with their medical bills, often hit with attorney costs as well. giving them a much higher default rate as well. The hospital gets no money from them, and they are written off, and their costs are averaged into everyone elses, increasing their rates.

Now it should be pretty obvious to everyone, that on average, each insurance company ends up paying the same amount out in claims, since the cost ones they didn't cover are simply added to the costs of the ones they do. Lets say that each company has two real choices: cover everyone, or to engage in the practices i have just outlined. If the other insurance companies adopt the policy to cover everyone under all circumstances, company B will be at a significant advantage if it choices to practices the more aggressive methods. If they other companies have already adopted the more aggressive practices, it will be at an enormous disadvantage if it chooses the less aggressive policies, and will quickly go out of business. In summary, it's always in the insurance firms best interest to go with the aggressive policies, and all firms will do so. In this situation, significant extra costs are added to peoples rates, in the form of attorney fees and others. In the real world, this causes private individual insurance rates to be about 20-40% more expensive than they otherwise should be.




With a single payer system, the costs are relatively similar, however many inefficiencies are removed: it is no longer efficient to drop coverage on the high-cost (they would have to pay for them anyways), there are no incentives to not pay out on a claim (they would have to pay the entire cost anyways), there are no adverse selection problems (meaning they no longer have to worry that they are only insuring the sickest), and the moral hazard problems roughly stay the same. it is for these reasons that single payer systems around the world generally offer similar or better care at significantly less expense to the average person.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

Your friend can go work for McDonalds or Safeway 32 hours a week, get health care and have a small paycheck to take home to boot. It is ALWAYS possible to get health care for yourself unless you are flat out bedridden. It is not the government's problem that your friend is unwilling to work a low-paying blue collar job to provide one of the essentials in his life while he looks for better work.

I have a medical condition that requires nearly $50k in treatment every year to allow me to keep walking and using my hands. It is not the government's job to provide that for me; it's my responsibility to do whatever I need to do to have premium health care. Now the UK, on the other hand, who provides health care to their citizens, recently decided that if you don't show immediate improvement on my treatment (which is unusual) then you don't get a second shot at it. Yeah, give me privatized health care ANY DAY over somebody making a decision like that for me.

you should be glad that you are actually getting treatment.

are you on a private or group insurance plan?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

COBRA is crazy expensive, I couldn't swing paying it either. But you're suggesting that since your buddy can't afford it, we should be paying it for him? I'm gonna go with the consensus and say that if you didn't budget for the ~200/mo you'll pay for comparable non-COBRA policy, it's telling of your preferences - healthcare coverage just isn't your priority.

<- been on a $90/mo healthcare plan for past 2 years

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
private insurance is inefficient and should be done away with.

Oh I would LOOOOVE to see you defend the economics of the above!

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

Your friend can go work for McDonalds or Safeway 32 hours a week, get health care and have a small paycheck to take home to boot. It is ALWAYS possible to get health care for yourself unless you are flat out bedridden. It is not the government's problem that your friend is unwilling to work a low-paying blue collar job to provide one of the essentials in his life while he looks for better work.

I have a medical condition that requires nearly $50k in treatment every year to allow me to keep walking and using my hands. It is not the government's job to provide that for me; it's my responsibility to do whatever I need to do to have premium health care. Now the UK, on the other hand, who provides health care to their citizens, recently decided that if you don't show immediate improvement on my treatment (which is unusual) then you don't get a second shot at it. Yeah, give me privatized health care ANY DAY over somebody making a decision like that for me.

you should be glad that you are actually getting treatment.

are you on a private or group insurance plan?

I am glad, and I would do everything short of prostituting myself to make sure it continues. I went untreated for a year before I was diagnosed and I will not let that happen to me again if there is any way whatsoever for me to prevent it; if that means scrubbing bathroom floors at a homeless shelter, I'll do it.

I'm currently on group insurance. I have paid through the nose for private insurance for a year when I worked as a temp though. It's painful, but you do what is necessary.

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Not all UHC systems are equivalent. You can't simply say that the UK model is bad, therefore all UHC models are bad. There is in fact quite a range of implementations and iidealogies governing it. Besides, our economy could actually benefit from some form of UHC simply because it would allow companies to not have that in their direct labor costs, which the way it is right now puts our companies at a severe disadvantage to other first world countries.

My argument is that even in the best run UHC system in the world, somebody else is controlling your medical decisions. No system can possibly accommodate all the variations in medical need using policies. Individuals, using knowledge of their specific situation and the tailored advice of their doctors, make the best decisions about their care.

In the case of the UK, their decision makes sense from a national perspective. These meds are obscenely expensive and they are permanent; if they work you basically are on them for life. It's expensive to try and try and try again to see if they work. If you have a limited amount of money, why not use that to treat a kid with cancer? If I were the administrator I'd make the same decision. Which is EXACTLY why individuals should make their own medical care decisions. A government-run program makes the decisions that are best for the majority. A privatized program lets you make the decisions that are best for you. Government-run is great... until you're in that minority that needs care that's been deprioritized.

As far as the low-wage job thing goes, I think that nobody is above working at a grocery store, washing dished, cooking, picking crops, cleaning bathrooms, or mowing grass. NOBODY. That being said, if you don't live in an area with reliable public transportation (or any at all), most of what you make will be eaten up simply by food and transport (car, maintenance, insurance, gas, tags, etc.). Even so, a lot of those jobs are nonexistent in areas they once were because of the illegal immigration problem (flooded labor pool). There is most definitely a structural problem with our economy/society here. You used to be able to provide for yourself quite comfortably if you were willing to work hard, but in many cases that is no longer enough....

I'd disagree. You may not be able to afford a home or a clean/nice older car, but you swallow hard, rent in a low-income area, buy a $500 beater, work two jobs, and use the other programs accessible to you, like this:
http://www.uwkc.org/ourcommuni...sness/ida/eligible.asp

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

COBRA is crazy expensive, I couldn't swing paying it either. But you're suggesting that since your buddy can't afford it, we should be paying it for him?

<- been on a $90/mo healthcare plan for past 2 years

COBRA reflects the real cost of the health coverage, not what you may pay. My cost for health care is about $150/mo. The real cost of the coverage is over $700/mo. That is what you pay when you pick up COBRA.

COBRA is not a separate insurance plan. It is a law that alows an individual who loses employemnt to obtain the company's health insurance plan at the company's cost plus a small administrative fee for a period of time.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

COBRA is crazy expensive, I couldn't swing paying it either. But you're suggesting that since your buddy can't afford it, we should be paying it for him?

<- been on a $90/mo healthcare plan for past 2 years

COBRA reflects the real cost of the health coverage, not what you may pay. My cost for health care is about $150/mo. The real cost of the coverage is over $700/mo. That is what you pay when you pick up COBRA.

COBRA is not a separate insurance plan. It is a law that alows an individual who loses employemnt to obtain the company's health insurance plan at the company's cost plus a small administrative fee for a period of time.

I'm well aware of COBRA is - I had an option to continue my former employer's coverage via COBRA when I left for Grad school.

Economically speaking, it's not only expected but guaranteed that once you leave full time work, you will not choose COBRA -> it follows from preference theory. You basically get the same benefit as before, but now your plan costs x times as much. The outcome is that you will optimize and look for a cheaper plan...

 

[MovingTarget]

I'd disagree. You may not be able to afford a home or a clean/nice older car, but you swallow hard, rent in a low-income area, buy a $500 beater, and use the other programs accessible to you, like this:
http://www.uwkc.org/ourcommuni...sness/ida/eligible.asp

You can easily rent in a low-income area and have a craptastic vehicle, but that doesn't mean that you will be able to afford healthcare. There are far too many in the US who don't try to live in luxury and work hard, but will not be able to afford healthcare. Besides, programs like that do help quite a bit, but they are in no way a solution. To think that they are is unrealistic. They help where they can, but they can't help in many situations. Working 40hr/wk or more in many cases will just allow you to tread water in having food, basic shelter, and a way to get to work everyday only to rinse and repeat. No luxuries, but still no way to afford medical treatment or insurance. Such is poverty in the US.

My argument is that even in the best run UHC system in the world, somebody else is controlling your medical decisions. No system can possibly accommodate all the variations in medical need using policies. Individuals, using knowledge of their specific situation and the tailored advice of their doctors, make the best decisions about their care.

This I disagree with. See freegeeks' thread on the French model. You can still choose your doctor/pharmacist/hospital/etc. without any input from the government. As it stands, the modern HMO system does a much worse job in that you have to really do your research into who they contract with. They are the ones who control who your medical decisions over here as opposed to in the UK. Seeing a specialist? You had better do your homework to see that they are 'on the list' as well. You only have a real choice of doctors if you have a gold-plated plan from an employer that can still afford it.

You are correct that only an individual can best decide about the type of care they receive. Right now, the driving factor is money, which imho limits choice just as, if not more effectively. What about public/private models that do give you a choice other than what the government is willing to pay for?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

I'd disagree. You may not be able to afford a home or a clean/nice older car, but you swallow hard, rent in a low-income area, buy a $500 beater, and use the other programs accessible to you, like this:
http://www.uwkc.org/ourcommuni...sness/ida/eligible.asp

You can easily rent in a low-income area and have a craptastic vehicle, but that doesn't mean that you will be able to afford healthcare. There are far too many in the US who don't try to live in luxury and work hard, but will not be able to afford healthcare. Besides, programs like that do help quite a bit, but they are in no way a solution. To think that they are is unrealistic. They help where they can, but they can't help in many situations. Working 40hr/wk or more in many cases will just allow you to tread water in having food, basic shelter, and a way to get to work everyday only to rinse and repeat. No luxuries, but still no way to afford medical treatment or insurance. Such is poverty in the US.

Agreed - IF we're talking about a 40 hour week. Everyone I know making six figures works 60-80, sometimes more. I don't consider it unreasonable or inhuman to have to work more than 40 hours a week in order to provide food, roof, transportation and health care. Two full time jobs at 7/hr, lower than most min wages, still brings you out to 30k a year. When I made 32k I paid my personal health care, rent, car, etc and still was able to save. *Disclaimer, no dependents or I wouldn't have been saving.

My argument is that even in the best run UHC system in the world, somebody else is controlling your medical decisions. No system can possibly accommodate all the variations in medical need using policies. Individuals, using knowledge of their specific situation and the tailored advice of their doctors, make the best decisions about their care.

This I disagree with. See freegeeks' thread on the French model. You can still choose your doctor/pharmacist/hospital/etc. without any input from the government. As it stands, the modern HMO system does a much worse job in that you have to really do your research into who they contract with. They are the ones who control who your medical decisions over here as opposed to in the UK. Seeing a specialist? You had better do your homework to see that they are 'on the list' as well. You only have a real choice of doctors if you have a gold-plated plan from an employer that can still afford it.

Will go read the thread.

You are correct that only an individual can best decide about the type of care they receive. Right now, the driving factor is money, which imho limits choice just as, if not more effectively. What about public/private models that do give you a choice other than what the government is willing to pay for?

Other than the fact that I don't trust the government, any government, to sustain a true choice model, I already pay 55% of my 80 hour/week income in taxes right now. If they up that another 10% to pay health care for everyone, including the folks that prioritize their free time over providing for themselves I should just quit and live off the system.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01....html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This should have been done before bailing out banks. I have friends who got laid off and can't afford COBRA payments, where is their bail out? We can't allow a temporary economic disaster turn into a health care disaster that is going to do permanent damage to people's health and lives.

Fortunately if you believe the whiners on the right, there is progress being made on this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327719403931465.html

COBRA is crazy expensive, I couldn't swing paying it either. But you're suggesting that since your buddy can't afford it, we should be paying it for him?

<- been on a $90/mo healthcare plan for past 2 years

COBRA reflects the real cost of the health coverage, not what you may pay. My cost for health care is about $150/mo. The real cost of the coverage is over $700/mo. That is what you pay when you pick up COBRA.

COBRA is not a separate insurance plan. It is a law that alows an individual who loses employemnt to obtain the company's health insurance plan at the company's cost plus a small administrative fee for a period of time.

I'm well aware of COBRA is - I had an option to continue my former employer's coverage via COBRA when I left for Grad school.

Economically speaking, it's not only expected but guaranteed that once you leave full time work, you will not choose COBRA -> it follows from preference theory. You basically get the same benefit as before, but now your plan costs x times as much. The outcome is that you will optimize and look for a cheaper plan...

I wonder if you really do. I have had employees who leave who have opted for the COBRA option as the insurance the company provided was better than anything the individual could get on their own. Not in all cases of course and everyone always makes what they think are optimal decisions so that smoke about preference theory I blow away to clear the air.

How you were referring to "COBRA" as "crazy expensive" when COBRA is a law and not something you pay for made me believe you did not know what COBRA really is about.

 

[Xavier434]

I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

Been there in that situation. FU.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
a significant portion of these people without insurance who get hit by big medical costs are going to end up going bankrupt and their costs will just be tacked on to everyone else's bill; regardless we are going to end up paying for it, might as well do it in the simplest format that doesn't involve claims courts, lawyers, etc to inflate the price even more.

News Flash!

That (bankruptcy) will likely happen if you do have health insurance. A lot of health insurance policies have annual and/or lifetime caps. So, even with HI you may well end up bankrupt with major medical expenses anyway.

(Remember that case where Walmart was suing some woman? She was an employee when she was hit by a truck and required serious medical care. Well, she went bankrupt because the benefit caps kicked in and Walmart was suing her to get the judgement awared her by the courts against the trucking company. Even though her HI benefits ran out Walmart says under the HC plan she owed them the judgement money. We need reform before anything else. Since hospitals must treat you when there's life at risk, the major point to HI is avoiding bankruptcy - the current HI situation is illusory and doesn't prevent that anyway. So why bother under the current system?)

Fern

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

Been there in that situation. FU.

Same here. I know it isn't pretty.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the health care system is working fine. There's no doubt it needs fixing. Too many people can't afford it.

But the debate is, or should be IMO, do we transfer the financial burden of high health care costs to others, or do we find out why exactly it is so expensive, and actually find ways to make it cheaper?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the health care system is working fine. There's no doubt it needs fixing. Too many people can't afford it.

But the debate is, or should be IMO, do we transfer the financial burden of high health care costs to others, or do we find out why exactly it is so expensive, and actually find ways to make it cheaper?

Most likely, the best answer imo would end up being a blend of both somehow.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I'm a fucking savage that works my ass off and probably pays the health care for 6 kids so mommy can work 40 hours a week and be home in the evenings. If you raise my taxes to the point where I can work 40 hours a week and have the same take-home pay that I do now, guess what I'm going to do? Only pay enough taxes to support 2 kids. If you want to make the earners pay for everyone else you still need to leave them enough incentive to want to do what they do. It's getting closer and closer to "not worth it" for me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the health care system is working fine. There's no doubt it needs fixing. Too many people can't afford it.

But the debate is, or should be IMO, do we transfer the financial burden of high health care costs to others, or do we find out why exactly it is so expensive, and actually find ways to make it cheaper?

Most likely, the best answer imo would end up being a blend of both somehow.

Well, when the Democrats and Republicans can tell me why it is so expensive, I'll listen to their solutions.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the health care system is working fine. There's no doubt it needs fixing. Too many people can't afford it.

But the debate is, or should be IMO, do we transfer the financial burden of high health care costs to others, or do we find out why exactly it is so expensive, and actually find ways to make it cheaper?

Most likely, the best answer imo would end up being a blend of both somehow.

More than likely, that will happen, though I could argue we already have a blend.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I'm a fucking savage that works my ass off and probably pays the health care for 6 kids so mommy can work 40 hours a week and be home in the evenings. If you raise my taxes to the point where I can work 40 hours a week and have the same take-home pay that I do now, guess what I'm going to do? Only pay enough taxes to support 2 kids. If you want to make the earners pay for everyone else you still need to leave them enough incentive to want to do what they do. It's getting closer and closer to "not worth it" for me.

Read it again. You don't need 6 kids to be in the situation I am talking about. You can only have 1 kid and be stuck with that problem. Plus, what would you have these mothers do? They can only work so late every day. The daycares and after school care programs are not open 24/7.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wonder if any of you cold hearted hard liners have the balls to go up to a hard working tax paying single mother with kids and tell her children right in front of her to "suck it up" because mommy has to choose between healthcare and feeding the family while putting a roof over their heads and keeping the heat on.

Fucking savages. I swear that some of you assholes can't see past your own bank accounts and W2s.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the health care system is working fine. There's no doubt it needs fixing. Too many people can't afford it.

But the debate is, or should be IMO, do we transfer the financial burden of high health care costs to others, or do we find out why exactly it is so expensive, and actually find ways to make it cheaper?

Your side had 15 years after shooting down HillaryCare to make healthcare cheaper and let private sector solve the problem. Instead we had out of control escalation in health care costs and increase in the number of uninsured. The time for debate is over. We don't have time to debate while people forgo necessary care because they don't have the means to see a doctor until they are sick enough to be forced to go to the ER. We already pay for everyone to get care through the most expensive place possible, the ER. So we already settled that everyone is entitled to care, because if they weren't we wouldn't treat people in ER who couldn't prove the ability to pay.
Even the rightwingers use this point that we don't let people die on the streets who don't have insurance. We PAY for them to get treatment ALREADY. Since that entitlement is settled, now we have to decide what the most cost effective way of treating people and it's most certainly not at the ER. We need to provide preventative care and care needed to prevent conditions from developing to the point where they cause people to go to the ER at enormous cost to the public, and also costs in lost productivity and life due to delay of treatment.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Your side had 15 years after shooting down HillaryCare to make healthcare cheaper and let private sector solve the problem. Instead we had out of control escalation in health care costs and increase in the number of uninsured. The time for debate is over. We don't have time to debate while people forgo necessary care because they don't have the means to see a doctor until they are sick enough to be forced to go to the ER. We already pay for everyone to get care through the most expensive place possible, the ER. So we already settled that everyone is entitled to care, because if they weren't we wouldn't treat people in ER who couldn't prove the ability to pay.
Even the rightwingers use this point that we don't let people die on the streets who don't have insurance. We PAY for them to get treatment ALREADY. Since that entitlement is settled, now we have to decide what the most cost effective way of treating people and it's most certainly not at the ER. We need to provide preventative care and care needed to prevent conditions from developing to the point where they cause people to go to the ER at enormous cost to the public, and also costs in lost productivity and life due to delay of treatment.

Putting aside the far too many failures of the past, I agree that paying for preventive care is a good way to save us money in the long run and make America more healthy. That doesn't mean that there should not be some limits to the preventive care though. For example, I don't want the people to be able to voluntarily go see any specialist they want at any time without referral. I don't want everyone to be able to perform any test at any time before some preliminary testing is performed. At the same time, I don't want the preventive care to be too restricted either because that defeats the purpose. There is a balance to be had and it won't be easy to figure out, but I am confident that with the right people we can make it happen.

You are also right about your argument concerning the ER.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Your side had 15 years after shooting down HillaryCare to make healthcare cheaper and let private sector solve the problem. Instead we had out of control escalation in health care costs and increase in the number of uninsured. The time for debate is over. We don't have time to debate while people forgo necessary care because they don't have the means to see a doctor until they are sick enough to be forced to go to the ER. We already pay for everyone to get care through the most expensive place possible, the ER. So we already settled that everyone is entitled to care, because if they weren't we wouldn't treat people in ER who couldn't prove the ability to pay.
Even the rightwingers use this point that we don't let people die on the streets who don't have insurance. We PAY for them to get treatment ALREADY. Since that entitlement is settled, now we have to decide what the most cost effective way of treating people and it's most certainly not at the ER. We need to provide preventative care and care needed to prevent conditions from developing to the point where they cause people to go to the ER at enormous cost to the public, and also costs in lost productivity and life due to delay of treatment.

My side?

You aren't going to see me excuse the Republicans for doing absolutely nothing to help solve the problem. But their not doing anything is NO excuse for the Democrats trying to solve the problem when they don't even understand or acknowledge why we have a problem in the first place.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre
My side?

You aren't going to see me excuse the Republicans for doing absolutely nothing to help solve the problem. But their not doing anything is NO excuse for the Democrats trying to solve the problem when they don't even understand or acknowledge why we have a problem in the first place.

We do not know for sure whether they understand it or not. They might. We will find out one way or another. Nothing to do but hope they have it figured out.