Quote: Original post by trzy
This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

You say that as if health care isn't currently being rationed in the United States.

Secondly, I've never heard of someone being refused important medical care in the UK. I have heard of terminally ill people being refused extremely expensive drugs that extend life for a short period of time.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
... includes 'not abusing the contract-enforcing position of government to strongarm people into deals they wouldnt otherwise agree to', id be all for it. Itd be hilarious.

Can you cite examples of this coercion in modern government healthcare?

This wouldn't be more vacuous fearmongering, would it?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Seeing as one of the primary alternatives on the table is a system which would be mandated to sustain its own operation financially, Promit's comparison seems rather appropriate.

So, if those in disagreement really believe that the government is so terrible, there should be exactly zero opposition to a public-option which is explicitly and forever mandated to raise it's own revenue (as sufficient to cover it expenses). Of course, the neocons oppose even these options, making it pretty clear that an excuse citing fear of subsidized competition is bullshit.

Can you cite this proposal, and its opponents?

Uhh.. it's almost like you're trying to interject yourself into a debate that when you're not even armed with the facts. Meh..




A quote from an author of a reform proposal:
http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5066
"The overwhelming majority of people in this country want options. I think having a public option, that is not subsidized by taxpayers, but can compete as part of the options available to the general public, is healthy," Dodd said.



The opponents:

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron

Quote: Original post by trzy
This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

You say that as if health care isn't currently being rationed in the United States.

How so?

Quote:
Secondly, I've never heard of someone being refused important medical care in the UK. I have heard of terminally ill people being refused extremely expensive drugs that extend life for a short period of time.

If people want to pay for them, they should get the drugs they want. Also, this idea that bureaucrats can ration care under the guise of medical prudence is dangerous. Recently it has been discovered that many people diagnosed in a vegetative state, which allows them to be pulled off of life support, are in fact not.

Quote: Original post by trzy
If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

My wife needed an ultrasound to help diagnose a medical condition (non-life threatening). She doesn't have health insurance, but they booked her in that very same week. This isn't the U.K., but as I said before, Australia has a hybrid public/private system and my wife relies entirely on the public system. Now, one case does not prove that the whole system is efficient, but it should at least provide a counter-point for the "I have to wait x months for treatment because it's rationed".

As another example, a friend of mine once had to go to the emergency room here because she woke up one morning with a sudden migraine. Having never had migraines before, the doctors wanted to do an MRI to make sure there wasn't a tumor or anything like that. She had it done that very night. And, since it was in the emergency room, she wasn't charged for it.

Australia's medical system is far from perfect (if you live here, it seems not a month goes by without some "crisis") but at least here, if you have a problem, you go to see a doctor. From what I understand in the U.S., if you've got a problem, you don't go to the doctor, because it's too expensive, and you just wait until it gets so bad that you can't possibly avoid it.

It might not be perfect here, but I know which system I would prefer.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron

Quote: Original post by trzy
This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

You say that as if health care isn't currently being rationed in the United States.

How so?

Quote:
Secondly, I've never heard of someone being refused important medical care in the UK. I have heard of terminally ill people being refused extremely expensive drugs that extend life for a short period of time.

If people want to pay for them, they should get the drugs they want. Also, this idea that bureaucrats can ration care under the guise of medical prudence is dangerous. Recently it has been discovered that many people diagnosed in a vegetative state, which allows them to be pulled off of life support, are in fact not.

So once again why is government rationing care evil but a insurance company deciding they rather not shell out the money just fine.

Alright people.. this is why the chant heard at so many town hall meetings is: READ THE BILL

In order to facilitate a more informed discussion, here are a list of the points the Republicans are making along with the respective pages from the actual health care bill.

1.) This will eventually lead to a single-payer system, aka "socialized" healthcare.

Large possibility, as discussed earlier.

pg. 22 - Describing a government mandated audit of employers

"Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate
to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure"

pg. 72 and pg. 84 - determine requirements and restrict enrollment for private insurance.

2.) Government allowed real-time access to individuals' bank accounts for electronic transfers

pg. 59

3.) Coverage given to non-us citizens, legal and illegal.

bottom of pg. 50

4.) non-resident aliens exempt from individual taxes

pg. 70

4.) Government will set wages for doctors

pg. 127


"payment shall only be available if the provider agrees to accept the
payment rate established under section 223"


5.) Employers exceeding a 250k payroll who do not choose the public plan will suffer a 2, 4, 6, or 8% PAYROLL tax (a lot of money) depending on the size of the company.

pg. 150

6.) Rationing cancer patient coverage to not exceed amounts determined by the Secretary.

pg. 272

7.) Hospitals will be punished for having, as the government deems, "excess re-admissions" (chronically diseased patients)

pg. 280

8.) Hospitals cannot expand their capacity without government approval.

pg. 317 section C

9.) Restricted enrollment for those with special needs

pg.354


"SEC. 1176. LIMITATION ON ENROLLMENT OUTSIDE OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD OF INDIVIDUALS INTO CHRONIC CARE"

"SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT."


10.) Here's the big one. End of life care. Read the following quotes to understand where the republicans are coming from

pg. 425-426


"Such consultation shall include the following"

"Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include:

The reasons why the development of
such an order is beneficial to the individual and
the individual's family and the reasons why
such an order should be updated periodically as
the health of the individual changes

The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items

the intensity of medical intervention

the use of antibiotics;

the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Seeing as one of the primary alternatives on the table is a system which would be mandated to sustain its own operation financially, Promit's comparison seems rather appropriate.

So, if those in disagreement really believe that the government is so terrible, there should be exactly zero opposition to a public-option which is explicitly and forever mandated to raise it's own revenue (as sufficient to cover it expenses). Of course, the neocons oppose even these options, making it pretty clear that an excuse citing fear of subsidized competition is bullshit.

Can you cite this proposal, and its opponents?

Uhh.. it's almost like you're trying to interject yourself into a debate that when you're not even armed with the facts. Meh..




A quote from an author of a reform proposal:
http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5066
"The overwhelming majority of people in this country want options. I think having a public option, that is not subsidized by taxpayers, but can compete as part of the options available to the general public, is healthy," Dodd said.



The opponents:

Quote:
Can you cite examples of this coercion in modern government healthcare?

This wouldn't be more vacuous fearmongering, would it?

Ofcource. The US seems to be pretty much the only country in the world honoring medical patents. Which is very generous of them, paying for the world's drugs, but anyway. Agressive price-controls on other things the government likes, such as the labor of doctors, is another universal of government run healthcare.


When Dodd says 'not subsidized by taxpayers', what exactly does he mean? Without further qualification, I am going to have to assume this is the usual political doublespeak. A public insurer as a private insurer minus a profit motive would be a disaster, and i think everyone knows it. The only 'extra' the public option can offer are various forms of redistributionism, either by taking money at gunpoint, or by spending less money at gunpoint, in the form of the government forcing favorable deals upon itself. Ill bet you a thousand to one, the passed proposal will contain both.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I have a quick question. In a speech Obama gave, he promised that if you have insurance you already like you'll be able to keep it. And that this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

Isn't competing private insurance (has to make profit) with public (doesn't need to make a profit) going to eventually run private insurance out of business? Especially considering that employers are going to be punished unless they go with public coverage.

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system? A way to fool people into thinking they will be able to keep their coverage when it's obvious that private insurance will not be able to compete?

There's something to your point. Obama's public option could be the start of slippery slope towards single payer, but as it stands so far, the reforms aren't about single payer, so his remarks aren't "completely illegitimate" as you put it. Private insurance should have been run out of business 50 years ago. Obama should have come out swinging with a big push for single payer, expanding medicare coverage (adding parts c & d to parts a & b) and phasing it in over time to cover everyone - first adding those over 55, then over 45, over 35, over 25. Children and those under 25 should have been added long ago. Obama shouldn't have started off with a compromise, compounded with further compromise. He totally blew the message. People are worried that health care reform will increase the deficit, as if they cared so much about the deficit that they are willing to pay more taxes, but it doesn't seem to have registered with them that no reform will increase the deficit more than reform.

Well I just hope that adding the 47 million uninsured won't clog the hospitals up too much (bad for everybody)

The current system clogs emergency rooms with people seeking treatment better delivered through primary caregivers. I think that's bad for everybody.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
And that this plan won't get too bloated in the future from the uncontrolled population growth. America's population grows about 50 million every 15 years (which means insuring every one of them), so I would assume more hospitals would have to open up at some point to avoid the unethical waiting lines so many people are worried about.

Yes. And building new hospitals will be good for the economy. Far better than building thousands of nuclear weapons, jets meant to fight the latest MiG's from the Soviet Union, or aircraft carriers meant to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy...

Quote: Original post by Kaze

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron

Quote: Original post by trzy
This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

You say that as if health care isn't currently being rationed in the United States.

How so?

Quote:
Secondly, I've never heard of someone being refused important medical care in the UK. I have heard of terminally ill people being refused extremely expensive drugs that extend life for a short period of time.

If people want to pay for them, they should get the drugs they want. Also, this idea that bureaucrats can ration care under the guise of medical prudence is dangerous. Recently it has been discovered that many people diagnosed in a vegetative state, which allows them to be pulled off of life support, are in fact not.

So once again why is government rationing care evil but a insurance company deciding they rather not shell out the money just fine.

Insurance companies insisting on doing everything in their power to deny care, restrict patient choice in seeking out doctors, and denying enrollment based on "pre-existing conditions" are very real problems that need to be tackled. But then again, obviously many people are able to obtain the treatments your government denies otherwise you wouldn't have raised the issue. And despite the well-known horrors of the American health insurance system, our cancer survival rates are remarkably better than Britain's. You guys are doing a hell of a job over there!