Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: BoberFettAnd I suppose you think that taking $50 out of your left pocket and put into your right means you earned $50 dollars?

1. Forcing employers to cancel their insurance and pay the difference to employers as salary, then forcing workers to buy private insurance? It's a shell game. Nothing is lost or gained.

2. Even if that was the idea, what about people people who don't currently receive health care benefits from their company or who are unemployed. They already make zero dollars in the form of healthcare, and so will not have additional money with which to buy insurance.

The term "universal healthcare" means everyone is covered. In order for everyone to be covered, the government will have to provide it in some way. I'm sorry you don't understand simple English.

Try thinking before you type. This is all that my first post was trying to point out. If you feel compelled to comment, at least understand that there may be more to the topic than the title.


1)It is not a shell game, something significant is gained that you could find it if you bothered to read the OP. Since this is so simple to understand, I will let you try and figure it out.

...actually I don't trust you to try and read it, so I will give you hints, one thing starts with "port' and ends with "ability". Another starts with "everyone" and ends with "has access to group rates". Another... oh just read the article. Or read about it right from Senator Wyden's site


2)Again read before you type. You have access to the same info that I do. The proposal is that everyone has the opportunity to buy coverage. For some this will be subsidized. BTW ER visits by people who cannot afford to pay are subsidised by insurance premiums of those who can afford to pay anyway.

Nothing is gained, the only thing you're gaining is a government run beauracracy. Don't you people know that everything the governemtn tries to do will always be bloated, overpriced and crap? Govt. social programs are useless, if the govt. gets their hands on health care, we'll be screwed...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Two things. First of all if you are trying to say that socialized medicine is responsible for european economic stagnation, you are woefully ignorant. -THEY SPEND LESS PER CAPITA THEN WE DO- that means MORE money for other things.... and LESS of a drain on their economy. I would also not try to talk about export strength when I lived in a country with the largest trade deficit in the world. Your Ayn Randian philosophy on economics is a waste of time and space. If you can't understand the social implications of why progressive taxation exists, I suggest you consult the French and Russian revolutions.

Secondly,

Socialism is bad, don't waste your time arguing with me about it because I won't budge. Stupid hippies...

Any time you say the equivalent of "nothing you can say or show me will change my mind" means that you have turned off your brain, and are now choosing to be willfully ignorant. Shame on you.

No, it means that I've heard all of the arguements much like a judge and the final proceedings are taking place, meaning that there is no more talking.. What, are you going to say the court is closed minded? Just and FYI to you, the same stuff is said over and over again on both sides, nothing new has come up yet each side believes that if they yell and scream and repeat themselves, the otherside will give in.

 

[BoberFett]

And apparently you missed this part

Increases in premium payments for individuals and families would be offset by higher wages and subsidies provided under the plan, the report said. As an example, Wyden cited a worker who earned $60,000 last year, and received about $12,000 worth of health care coverage.

The worker's health insurance would be terminated but his salary would increase to $72,000, which would cover his health care coverage. The plan would bar workers from buying a "bare-bones" health package and pocketing the savings, Wyden said.

So everyone would get a pay increase exactly equal to the amount the employer was paying for their coverage. The employee would then be required to spend that exact amount on another plan so they couldn't "pocket the savings." Shell game.

You also only served to confirm my second point, that universal healthcare indicates at least some level of government coverage.[/quote]The proposal is that everyone has the opportunity to buy coverage. For some this will be subsidized.[/quote]If the government isn't subsidizing it, who is? So between the shell game of those who can afford to the government subsidization of those who can't what exactly are we gaining here?

Finally, based on what I've read at Wyden's site, there will be significant government control over the health insurance industry.

Each state, with financial support from the Federal government and insurance companies, will establish a Health Help Agency. Health Help Agencies will lower administrative costs by coordinating payments from employers, individuals and government.

Every time an individual interacts with state, local and federal government?registering their car, enrolling their children in school, applying for a driver?s license or paying their taxes?they can be required to verify their enrollment in a private health insurance plan.

Previous and existing health problems, occupation, genetic information, gender and age will no longer be allowed to impact eligibility or the price paid for insurance. Rather, insurance companies will be required to cover every individual who chooses to enroll and can not raise prices or deny coverage if individuals are sick.

The government oversight of such a system sounds like it will have to be massive, so much so as to essentially be just another arm of the government. What will differentiate any one "private" insurance company from another? If you're simply choosing from Private Insurer A and Private Insurer B which are functionally identical due to government regulation, what exactly is gained by calling it "private"?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: BoberFettAnd I suppose you think that taking $50 out of your left pocket and put into your right means you earned $50 dollars?

1. Forcing employers to cancel their insurance and pay the difference to employers as salary, then forcing workers to buy private insurance? It's a shell game. Nothing is lost or gained.

2. Even if that was the idea, what about people people who don't currently receive health care benefits from their company or who are unemployed. They already make zero dollars in the form of healthcare, and so will not have additional money with which to buy insurance.

The term "universal healthcare" means everyone is covered. In order for everyone to be covered, the government will have to provide it in some way. I'm sorry you don't understand simple English.

Try thinking before you type. This is all that my first post was trying to point out. If you feel compelled to comment, at least understand that there may be more to the topic than the title.


1)It is not a shell game, something significant is gained that you could find it if you bothered to read the OP. Since this is so simple to understand, I will let you try and figure it out.

...actually I don't trust you to try and read it, so I will give you hints, one thing starts with "port' and ends with "ability". Another starts with "everyone" and ends with "has access to group rates". Another... oh just read the article. Or read about it right from Senator Wyden's site


2)Again read before you type. You have access to the same info that I do. The proposal is that everyone has the opportunity to buy coverage. For some this will be subsidized. BTW ER visits by people who cannot afford to pay are subsidised by insurance premiums of those who can afford to pay anyway.

Nothing is gained, the only thing you're gaining is a government run beauracracy. Don't you people know that everything the governemtn tries to do will always be bloated, overpriced and crap? Govt. social programs are useless, if the govt. gets their hands on health care, we'll be screwed...

Tell me, can you summarize the proposal that started this topic? Or are you just on some OMGWTF "Universal Healthcare" kick?

I ask because I have not seen an "on topic" post from you yet.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: BoberFettAnd I suppose you think that taking $50 out of your left pocket and put into your right means you earned $50 dollars?

1. Forcing employers to cancel their insurance and pay the difference to employers as salary, then forcing workers to buy private insurance? It's a shell game. Nothing is lost or gained.

2. Even if that was the idea, what about people people who don't currently receive health care benefits from their company or who are unemployed. They already make zero dollars in the form of healthcare, and so will not have additional money with which to buy insurance.

The term "universal healthcare" means everyone is covered. In order for everyone to be covered, the government will have to provide it in some way. I'm sorry you don't understand simple English.

Try thinking before you type. This is all that my first post was trying to point out. If you feel compelled to comment, at least understand that there may be more to the topic than the title.


1)It is not a shell game, something significant is gained that you could find it if you bothered to read the OP. Since this is so simple to understand, I will let you try and figure it out.

...actually I don't trust you to try and read it, so I will give you hints, one thing starts with "port' and ends with "ability". Another starts with "everyone" and ends with "has access to group rates". Another... oh just read the article. Or read about it right from Senator Wyden's site


2)Again read before you type. You have access to the same info that I do. The proposal is that everyone has the opportunity to buy coverage. For some this will be subsidized. BTW ER visits by people who cannot afford to pay are subsidised by insurance premiums of those who can afford to pay anyway.

Nothing is gained, the only thing you're gaining is a government run beauracracy. Don't you people know that everything the governemtn tries to do will always be bloated, overpriced and crap? Govt. social programs are useless, if the govt. gets their hands on health care, we'll be screwed...

Tell me, can you summarize the proposal that started this topic? Or are you just on some OMGWTF "Universal Healthcare" kick?

I ask because I have not seen an "on topic" post from you yet.

If saying that I'm on a OMGWTF "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE KICK" will result in you being sucked into a vortex so that I never have to hear from you again, then yes, I'm on a OMGWTF "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE KICK".

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Two things. First of all if you are trying to say that socialized medicine is responsible for european economic stagnation, you are woefully ignorant. -THEY SPEND LESS PER CAPITA THEN WE DO- that means MORE money for other things.... and LESS of a drain on their economy.

That may well be, but how does the American Annual Big Mac Per Capita compare to the European Le Big Mac Per Capita? Are the Europeans really saving money because of socialized medicine or is it because they don't abuse their bodies like Americans do?

To my knowledge, obesity and the attendant physical inactivity is one of the biggest contributors to poor health in the US. Europe historically has had a lower obesity rate than the US. However it is my understanding that they are catching up to us in that area. I guess we'll see how the socialist model copes with increasing health care costs due to poor lifestyle choices.

 

[MonkeyK]

Thank you, at least you are starting to actually think about the topic. Since you took the effort to do so, I will help you understand a little bit more.

So everyone would get a pay increase exactly equal to the amount the employer was paying for their coverage. The employee would then be required to spend that exact amount on another plan so they couldn't "pocket the savings." Shell game.

While it might appear like a shell game at first, there is are reasons that the proposal suggests moving the payment to the employee. One reason is that the coverage will follow the employee. If you have ever had to change insurance providers after establishing a relationship with a doctor, you can understand the value in this. Another reason is that insurance companies will be competing for everybodys' business instead of just the few people who are trying to get covered on their own.

You also only served to confirm my second point, that universal healthcare indicates at least some level of government coverage

I never said that the government would have no involvement, just that there is no proposal for the govenment to provide the care or administer the insurance.

The government oversight of such a system sounds like it will have to be massive, so much so as to essentially be just another arm of the government.

Each state already has Insurance regulatory bodies. I will not argue about how much oversight may be necessary. I could see some pain at first, but this should subside. Again the point of the proposal is that all Americans should be covered by health insurance. If they are not covered, we pay for those who cannot afford treatment anyway (and we typically pay more because those who cannot afford go to the ER)

What will differentiate any one "private" insurance company from another? If you're simply choosing from Private Insurer A and Private Insurer B which are functionally identical due to government regulation, what exactly is gained by calling it "private"?

1)Because private insurers (not the govenment) are administering the insurance. This means that (hopefully) they will compete to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible cost, thereby reducing the risk that the government will become a bloated heathcare administrator.
2)Becauase the proposal descibes a "minimum" coverage level beyond which insurers are free to distinguish themselves


The proposal is not perfect, but IMO, it is hardly an abomination. I would really like to see BaliBabyDoc's evaluation.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: goku
If saying that I'm on a OMGWTF "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE KICK" will result in you being sucked into a vortex so that I never have to hear from you again, then yes, I'm on a OMGWTF "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE KICK".

Great, 'cause that's what I thought. You have nothing useful to contribute to the thread.

 

[fskimospy]

I like how goku contributed to a thread by spouting his views on universal health care, and then said that it was pointless for people to discuss universal health care. Right on!

Boberfett, I agree that obesity takes it's toll, but according to this link it accounts for approximately 10% of US health spending. (true, it is from 2000, but I think we can both agree that it hasn't made up the rest of the gap between the US and europe in that time). So while less healthy US lifestyle choices are certainly a drag on our system, I don't think it's enough. Socialized medicine is simply more efficient then our current system.

You could possibly make a case for some other system that would be better then socialized medicine... but I think that defending our current one against its canadian and european counterparts is extremely difficult.

 

[DVK916]

The fact that it accounts for 10% has absolutly nothing to do with what level of effect it has on our life expectancy.

 

[fskimospy]

but it does have a lot to do with comparative levels of spending. Way to read for comprehension.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: xr71
A low income American family home is over 1800 square feet.
An average home in the EU is less than 1000.

Americans have barely 4% of our workforce unemployed except when Jimmy Carter is around.
Germany calls 10% unemployment a good day.

The US has a high per capita GDP of $40000.
They don't even get $30k across the sea.

And we want to copy these commies! Sorry it died 20 years ago.

:roll:

 

[Icepick]

Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

Well it's about f'ing time!!! The private sector has been steadily decreasing the amount of healthcare they're willing to pay for. Working Americans really need to wake up and realize that access to healthcare is being steadily eroded. It's time we implement a universal (or socialized - call it what you will, I don't care) health benefits system so that we don't have to worry about losing access to health care if our employer decides to "source" our jobs to India, Bangledesh or some place in Southeast Asia.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Icepick

Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

Well it's about f'ing time!!! The private sector has been steadily decreasing the amount of healthcare they're willing to pay for. Working Americans really need to wake up and realize that access to healthcare is being steadily eroded. It's time we implement a universal (or socialized - call it what you will, I don't care) health benefits system so that we don't have to worry about losing access to health care if our employer decides to "source" our jobs to India, Bangledesh or some place in Southeast Asia.

Yea, the Government has done such a great job with everything else. Public schools are thriving, social security is flawless, the war in Iraq is going great, and of course all of the victims of Katrina were rescued right away. Please Uncle Sam, come take care of us, we are not capable of taking care of ouselves.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Icepick

Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

Well it's about f'ing time!!! The private sector has been steadily decreasing the amount of healthcare they're willing to pay for. Working Americans really need to wake up and realize that access to healthcare is being steadily eroded. It's time we implement a universal (or socialized - call it what you will, I don't care) health benefits system so that we don't have to worry about losing access to health care if our employer decides to "source" our jobs to India, Bangledesh or some place in Southeast Asia.

Yea, the Government has done such a great job with everything else. Public schools are thriving, social security is flawless, the war in Iraq is going great, and of course all of the victims of Katrina were rescued right away. Please Uncle Sam, come take care of us, we are not capable of taking care of ouselves.

Not a bad point, but I think that's because many of those in charge have no belief in the Public System. They'd rather that system be gone than try and make it better, so they let it languish or outright sabotage it. Public Schools and other Government managed services in other Counties work very well.

 

[zinfamous]

Overall, socialized healthcare can work...and should probably happen here at some point. The only new point that I think I can contribute (after skipping a few pages), is that this is all well and good, but as long as some bullet-riddled gang banger doesn't show up at the ER with a free patch up, we would be doing the right thing. I know this is an employment, private-sector driven proposal, but the extra cash could fund other types of healthcare, which could lead to people abusing the system.

I know that most doctors out there would welcome socialized healthcare; I also know that 100% of doctors would prefer to operate on a child with an emergency apendicitis rather than extract bullets from yet another hoodlum, only to have them go out, get shot again, or shoot someone else.

I'm as liberal as it gets, but I have no sympathy for assholes that choose to shoot themselves to pieces, and train the wealth that our economy could be producing as a result of their general asshatery.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Try reading the OP.

...here I'll help:

The plan would require that employers "cash out" their existing health plans by terminating coverage and paying the amount saved directly to workers as increased wages. Workers then would be required to buy health insurance from a large pool of private plans.

you seem to be forgetting the next few paragraphs of the article:

After two years, companies would no longer have to pay the higher wages. Instead, Wyden said, they would pay into an insurance pool, based on annual revenues and the number of full-time workers.

At Wyden's request, the Lewin Group, a Virginia-based health care consulting firm, reviewed the plan. The consultant said the plan would reduce health spending by private employers by nearly three-quarters and save $1.4 trillion in total national health care spending over the next decade.

Increases in premium payments for individuals and families would be offset by higher wages and subsidies provided under the plan, the report said. As an example, Wyden cited a worker who earned $60,000 last year, and received about $12,000 worth of health care coverage.

The worker's health insurance would be terminated but his salary would increase to $72,000, which would cover his health care coverage. The plan would bar workers from buying a "bare-bones" health package and pocketing the savings, Wyden said.

So after two years, the company is no longer required to pay the higher range, but IS required to pay an additional amount into a pool. Guess who will most likely have to absorb the cost? "Sorry, we're taking back that 12k this year" or "that raise you were going to get this year... we gave it to you 2 years ago." Otherwise companies will be paying exactly what they were in health coverage (via salary) in addition to the required payments into the pool.

Notice how they say that premiums will go up as well. Sure, these will be offset (hopefully) by increased wages (for 2 years, anyway) and subsidies. How long will it be before the cost of the subsidies aren't covered by the plan and they have to raise taxes?

I can see the situation for Americans as follows:
1) Making the same wages they were previously
2) Health insurance is no longer paid for by their employer
3) Forced to purchase a plan that has a higher premium...
4) Subsidized by the higher taxes they're paying on their earnings.

 

[Ilikepiedoyou]

I don't want to be held responsible for other people abusing themselves. BUT, I really want to see some good numbers of the moeny we pay for the emrgency room vs. what this universal health care would cost us. I never thought of the e-room though as being universal heath care, but I guess in a way it is.

 

[Ilikepiedoyou]

Also are there any economic bebfits to this? It seems some of the worst paying jobs that get outsourced would often have to pay high incurance because of the injury, but with the healthcare burden off the backs of companies and instead coming from taxes, would companies begin to grow to new levels because of new drop in operating costs?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
Also are there any economic bebfits to this? It seems some of the worst paying jobs that get outsourced would often have to pay high incurance because of the injury, but with the healthcare burden off the backs of companies and instead coming from taxes, would companies begin to grow to new levels because of new drop in operating costs?

One thing that people need to realize is shifting the costs isnt going to magically increase one sector over another. Remember for Business to grow they need consumers. In this country we consume about 80-85% of what we make. If the consumers are taxed higher to pay for this thing, that is less money for consumers to spend on items business sells.

Even if it increases the bottom line companies dont pay more because they have money, they pay more because the market says so and they see increased productivity.

At most the best we will see is the status quo as Business does increase salaries to match the difference in health premiums. But chances are the owners will simply pocket the profits leaving the employee's with the new health insurance bill from the govt.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Icepick

Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

Well it's about f'ing time!!! The private sector has been steadily decreasing the amount of healthcare they're willing to pay for. Working Americans really need to wake up and realize that access to healthcare is being steadily eroded. It's time we implement a universal (or socialized - call it what you will, I don't care) health benefits system so that we don't have to worry about losing access to health care if our employer decides to "source" our jobs to India, Bangledesh or some place in Southeast Asia.

About the same time that people like you realize the primary reason for companies dropping healthcare coverage is because its getting too expensive. why is it getting too expesive? Easy, federal mandates on what has to be covered. The government is trying to make it too expensive so they can "step in" and rescue us.

The easiest method for the government to take over a service is to make it too expensive and difficult for the private sector to compete.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

as for Americans spending more per capita on health care be very careful with this number. Americans spend more on unneeded medical care (including purely cosmetic) that any other country as well.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
as for Americans spending more per capita on health care be very careful with this number. Americans spend more on unneeded medical care (including purely cosmetic) that any other country as well.

Darn lipsuction and breast implants. (do not mention this to OT though)

Also, the fact that many facilities want to schedule multiple visits instead of getting everything done after/during the first 1-2 visits.

 

[kitkat22]

If we go universal it would be a very tough implementation, not the least extremely expensive just to set it up.

There are many drawbacks to universal care and some solutions. The first drawback: what is going to happen to the doctors? Doctors go through at least 6-9 years of schools and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. If all of a sudden universal care decides a doctor should not be paid as much the number and quality of the doctors will drop precipitously. There needs to be a financial incentive for physicians. The second issue is waiting times. Because it is available to everyone and if it is free, anyone with a slight headache or scrape will see the doctor instead of taking ibuprofen or using a bandage. This will definitely overtax the current doctors and really make their jobs feel like it isn't worth it. Who wants to be prescribing Tylenol or putting a bandaid on and kissing it better on a daily basis? The third issue: increased taxes and inefficiency. I don't know about anyone else here but I don't want an additional 20% of my hard earned dollars going to taxes. In addition, we all know how the government tries to be efficient, but in reality they aren't and there is no incentive to be. I'm sure there are other issues, but I haven't thought that far into it yet. Anyway, on to the possible solutions.

The solutions to these issues are as follows. For the first, doctors should be well compensated and if there is any change in salary for a physician it should be minimal. More incentives should be in place to garner more doctors and get them through medical school. Not only will there be "fresh blood" entering the system, but physicians will have a higher outlook on life, stress will decrease and the quality of service will improve.The second issue can be resolved by keeping copays. A barrier to seeing a physician is needed so there are not frivolous visits being made. Common sense dictates if it is a minor cut that neosporin and a bandaid will work just fine. However, if someone feels they need to see a doctor it should be well worth the $20 or whatever to get in. The third solution is to set up tiers. Medical care should not cost the same to absolutely everyone, but it should be affordable. For example, medications for a hemophiliac cost upwards of $30-45k per bleeding episode. A hemophiliac should be required to contribute more to the system. If there is a history of CV disease in the family, guess what? They should be charged more. What about those opting for more optional surgeries, like plastic surgery, or laser treatment? Same goes for people with AIDS. This accomplishes several things. One, it promotes health. People do not want to be charged more so they will be more active and eat more healthy. People will think twice about who they sleep with or sharing those needles. Diabetics will tend to exercise more and really watch what they eat. People will really wonder if they should quit smoking. Second, it allows individuals with expensive diseases to have health insurance. They should be covered, there is no question in that, but ultimate question is at what expense to everyone else. I don't want to pay for a smoker's lung cancer or atherosclerosis. If you don't watch what you eat, why should I be responsible?

I know this sounds a lot like private insurance, but this is the only way I can see it being beneficial to everyone. The final note I want to make is the organization should be like a business. It should also be individualized among the states with the federal government overviewing everything. It should make a profit, which should go right back into the system to improve efficiency, investment in technology, etc. The ultimate goal of the whole program should be to move a lot of responsibility away from the government and put it onto the people.

I hope this isn't to much gibber-gabber and it makes sense. I'm only against the whole idea of universal insurance if it isn't implemented correctly or maintained. Unfortunately, our government doesn't have a great track record in both aspects so I'm very leery of the whole idea.