House Democrat Health Plan

[Magic Man]

When you remove all the above people, the number of truly uninsured Americans drops to about 11 million.

Do you really think that makes a difference? Whether it's one or a hundred or 11 million of 47 million, having some people who can't get healthcare because they don't have the money is just plain wrong. The fact that it's a group larger than the populations of many countries and 3% of all of our citizens only makes it worse.

Why not develop a government-subsidized plan for those people first - the people who are in the most need? Try the plan out on them, and if it works, expand it. What's wrong with that idea? No one has been able to tell me that yet.

Um...that was the idea of the public option.

Another erroneous idea is that the US ranks 37 and has more expensive healthcare because we do so poor a job of delivering healthcare. That idea is not only too simplistic, it is inaccurate, because the US is so unique in it's racial/ethnic/immigrant/population/size/etc makeup compared to most, if not all, European countries, Canada and Australia.

What do race and ethnicity have to do with it?

Take Norway for instance. Norway has a very small population compared to the US. They have a much lower rate of first and second generation immigrant population. Their population is largely homogenous - very similar genetics, lifestyles and habits, climate overall, etc. That makes their practice of medicine much more simplistic overall, which brings their overall costs per person down.

Do you really believe this?

Furthermore, they are not a worldwide center of healthcare and research. Research is a large part of the US budget for healthcare. We share the results of this research with the world. But the amount of research (and the cost of research) done in the US is HUGE compared with the costs and budgets for research in other countries per capita.

And?

This same principle is true (in varying degrees but in all cases in European countries, more so than the US) of most, if not all, European countries. The immigrant and non-native populations in most European countries are mostly centered in larger metropolitan areas. Each country, covering a much smaller landmass than the US as a whole, has a more narrow field of climate, racial and ethnic groups, trends, economics, etc. All these factors influence health.

And?

When we compare individual European countries to the US, it's like comparing, say, Minnesota to the whole US. You could say, "Compared to the US, Minnesota has a much lower rate of shark attacks! Therefore, Minnesota is a much safer place to swim than, say...Florida!"

You could, but that would be about as stupid as using an analogy like this as a legitimate argument.

If you are not from a border state, you may not be able to fully grasp the issue of immigration.

Thanks, but it's not a very hard issue to grasp. Immigrants come in illegally and use our schools and hospitals and such. Very simple. Doesn't have much to do with healthcare. Did you know that European countries give healthcare to travelers who aren't even living there? If they're able to do that, I think we can figure out a way to deal with the illegal immigrant problem.

Many, many hard working people in the US feel exactly the same way.

And many, many hard-working people in the U.S. don't have that luxury.

I want to know WHO is being covered, and WHAT SERVICES my tax dollars will be funding.

Why?

I want to know why, if it is possible to cut $123 billion from Medicare (as the Baucus plan suggests) WHY haven't we already done so? This is a government run healthcare plan, and it's got $123 BILLION dollars of waste in it that we can just cut, willy nilly? Or are we cutting HEALTHCARE SERVICES? Which is it?

Maybe it's because there is a plan to do different things. It's not just "Hey, we can cut this and that and do everything else the same", it's "Hey, we can cut this and that, as long as we then do this and this".

 

[Magic Man]

But hey, who are we kidding; We all know these facts and personal stories being told, are just liberal spin and leftist-propaganda. :sarcastic

Hey! Kathryn isn't conservative or right-wing, despite the number of conservative and right-wing ideas she subscribes to! She believes other stuff that's not conservative! She just looks at things unbiased-like!

 

[Kathryn]

Mr T, the info you posted about the "myths" of healthcare coverage (none of which seemed any sort of rebuttal to the POV that I posted by the way) are from the president and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is an organization that is openly and actively supporting the current administration and stands to gain quite a bit from that support - hardly an unbiased perspective. Nearly the entire board of directors of the group are executives from Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company. I did some research on this company and it's interesting. This is nothing more than a pharmaceutical company masquerading as a non profit.

This whole healthcare issue - on both sides of the fence - is so full of corrupt money that the American people will probably never know the real issues, the real figures, or the real winners in this. But I bet I know who the losers will be.

ABC Jettisons Journalistic Ethics to Flack for Obama Health Care | National Legal and Policy Center

Clearing The Air: Why is a pharmaceutical company funding smoking bans all around the country?

Here's an excellent article from the Wall Street Journal about the numbers of uninsured in the US - and their demographics:

Unhealthy Accounting of Uninsured - WSJ.com


By the way, I never disputed the ranking of the US by the WHO. I was looking deeper than a superficial level at the rankings.

"Seek first to understand," is a concept I really try to apply in my life.

 

[Kathryn]

mball, if you really think that Europeans treating tourists to medical treatment is equivalent to the US border states treating illegal aliens to a lifetime of medical issues...sheeze...

I also never said we should abandon the people who truly cannot afford healthcare coverage - not even one of them. We SHOULD provide healthcare coverage, food, clothing, housing, etc to anyone who can truly not care for themselves. We're a wealthy nation.

Race, ethnicity, lifestyle, genetics, habits, environment all play a HUGE part in healthcare issues. You really don't know this???

And you really don't think that illegal immigration negatively impacts a state's education, healthcare, and economic situation? Once again...I'm amazed.

The public option will encourage many businesses that now offer healthcare benefits to drop them and allow their workers to use the public option instead. Since most people have insurance THROUGH their work, this will millions of people, and millions of jobs in the insurance industry as well. We don't know yet what that cost will be - and we basically have no real way to gauge it either.

Finally - the Medicare cuts - any source on what they are going to cut and what they are going to keep? If so, I'd like to see it. It may make me feel better.

 

[Mister_T]

Mr T, the info you posted about the "myths" of healthcare coverage (none of which seemed any sort of rebuttal to the POV that I posted by the way)

Well then you obviously didn't read them or conveniently ignored them.

are from the president and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is an organization that is openly and actively supporting the current administration and stands to gain quite a bit from that support - hardly an unbiased perspective.

Is he claiming that only 11 million people that are uninsured "really uninsured" and the other 36 million "are not really not" like you were insinuating in your previous post or is that your own math? Perhaps you could direct me to what it is he said exactly.

Nearly the entire board of directors of the group are executives from Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company. I did some research on this company and it's interesting. This is nothing more than a pharmaceutical company masquerading as a non profit

Just as most GOP and Blue Cross Democrats (a.k.a. Blue Dogs) are paid-off drones for big insurance companies that masquerade as healthcare "freedom fighters."

This whole healthcare issue - on both sides of the fence - is so full of corrupt money that the American people will probably never know the real issues, the real figures, or the real winners in this.

That's something we can more or less agree on, although I think pretty obvious that one side is more corrupt than the other (which side that is we more than likely will not agree on I'm guessing).

Here's an excellent article from the Wall Street Journal about the numbers of uninsured in the US - and their demographics:

It is a good article regarding the uninsured demographs. However, that article is still not pumping out the numbers you were giving us earlier regarding people who "aren't really uninsured." Besides, I don't think there is anyone here who wouldn't argue that census graphs are not entirely accurate there is always room for error in regards to statistics. However, that margin for error is not 80+ percent like your figures from earlier were insinuating.

By the way, I never disputed the ranking of the US by the WHO .

No, you just labeled it as an "erroneous idea," which was also "too simplistic" and "inaccurate." Right, that doesn't sound at all like disputing. :cover:

I was looking deeper than a superficial level at the rankings.

"Seek first to understand," is a concept I really try to apply in my life

Well, call it whatever you want, but the findings by WHO are anything but erroneous.

 

[Zephyr]

Well whoops, looks like we have too many darkies to have universal healthcare. After all, race is a significant factor in healthcare costs.

Edit: My apologies, apparently you're going with the whole "Immigration!" angle.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey Kathryn,

Thanks for posting that WSJ article. I just wrote an email to its author, Mr. Bialik. It contains some numbers you may be interested in (highlighted in color):

Dear Mr. Bialik,

As a fellow physicist and numbers lover I was interested to read your June 24, 2009 column on the uninsured. Most of your column focused on the total number of uninsured. However, you did briefly address the question, who are the uninsured? You wrote:

"Even though legislation won't cover many of them, illegal immigrants are especially difficult to enumerate: Few raise their hands to be counted. Prof. Gruber estimates they make up about 13% of the uninsured today, or nearly six million people of that 45 million number.

Of the rest, some people are eligible for health insurance but don't know it and many can afford it but don't want it. About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level, according to a report released Tuesday by the business-backed Employment Policies Institute."

More data than the 43% figure you provided is needed to demonstrate those people can afford insurance but don't want it. Imagine a family with one low-wage worker and family members with severe diabetes or hemophilia, for instance. They might have income greater than 2.5 times the poverty level, and find insurance unaffordable, or have private coverage denied. But what is most striking about your description is the absence of any mention of poor people who are ineligible for public insurance and unable to afford private insurance, even though this describes the majorit
y of the uninsured. That is according to the Kaiser Family Foundation 2008 report and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which you can find here:

http://kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdf
America's Uninsured Crisis: Consequences for Health and Health Care - Institute of Medicine

Are these less scientific sources than the "business-backed Employment Policies Institute"?

It is striking that these reports, while citing reams of data for pages and pages, barely mention illegal immigrants or "the rest", who are "eligible for health insurance and don't know it" or "can afford it but don't want it". Instead, the studies repeat ad nauseum that most of the uninsured are ineligible for public insurance, and cannot afford private insurance. For example, according to the Kaiser study:

"Despite strong ties to the workforce—over eight in ten uninsured come from working families—about two-thirds of the uninsured are individuals and families who are poor (incomes less than the federal poverty level or $21,203 for a family of four in 2007) or near-poor (with incomes between one and two times the poverty level)."

"For many of the uninsured, the costs of health insurance and medical care are weighed against equally essential needs. The uninsured are about three times as likely as those with health coverage to live in a household that is having difficulty paying monthly expenses as basic as rent, food, and utilities.20"

"Medicaid covers some parents and low-income individuals with disabilities, but most adults without dependent children—regardless of how poor—are ineligible for Medicaid. As a result, over 40% of poor parents and adults without children are uninsured (Figure 19)."

"For example, a parent in a family of three working full-time at the minimum wage could not qualify for Medicaid in 29 states in 2007.44"

Will you please consider publishing these numbers in your next column on health insurance, or possibly an expansion of your June 24 column? Or are these unreliable sources?

Cheers,
Eric
​

 

[Kathryn]

Zeph, are we to the point in our society where we are so constrained by political correctness that we cannot point out or acknowledge that race and genetics and lifestyle play a factor in healthcare?

By the way, try to get over your freakout about me mentioning race as a factor, and be objective about my point, which was this:

Norway is a country with very few different races or ethnic groups. Their immigration rate is one of the lowest in the world (wow, that's weird if it's such a great place to live!). Therefore the vast majority of their people have similar genetic, racial, and lifestyle characteristics. This creates less of a need for a wide variety of medical research, approaches, specialists, programs, etc.

The more variety and differences among a population, the higher the costs of medical care because of the need and demand for a wide variety of facilities, specialists, research, equipment, etc.

This isn't necessarily BAD - it's just a major difference between a tiny, homogenous population and a huge, extremely varied population.

 

[Magic Man]

Mr T, the info you posted about the "myths" of healthcare coverage (none of which seemed any sort of rebuttal to the POV that I posted by the way) are from the president and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is an organization that is openly and actively supporting the current administration and stands to gain quite a bit from that support - hardly an unbiased perspective. Nearly the entire board of directors of the group are executives from Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company. I did some research on this company and it's interesting. This is nothing more than a pharmaceutical company masquerading as a non profit.

Why would a pharmaceutical company willingly support giving themselves less profits by dispelling these myths?

But I bet I know who the losers will be.

Yup, the people who can't afford decent health insurance, just like right now.

"Seek first to understand," is a concept I really try to apply in my life.

Great.

 

[Magic Man]

mball, if you really think that Europeans treating tourists to medical treatment is equivalent to the US border states treating illegal aliens to a lifetime of medical issues...sheeze...

That's a great response. At least you're forthcoming with the admission that you have no real response for that.

No, they're not the same thing. When did I say they were? I said, if the system can do the one, there's certainly a way to do the other. For instance, we could just make those illegals legal, and let them start paying taxes, and then they help pay for the healthcare they get. See? All done. Nice and easy.

I also never said we should abandon the people who truly cannot afford healthcare coverage - not even one of them. We SHOULD provide healthcare coverage, food, clothing, housing, etc to anyone who can truly not care for themselves. We're a wealthy nation.

Then, who cares whether the "real" number is 11 million of 47 million, especially when either way it's still an 8-digit number?

Race, ethnicity, lifestyle, genetics, habits, environment all play a HUGE part in healthcare issues. You really don't know this???

I assume you're trying to say that different races and ethnicities make for more expensive care because of their differences. So? So it'll be a little more expensive than other countries. And?

And you really don't think that illegal immigration negatively impacts a state's education, healthcare, and economic situation? Once again...I'm amazed.

Um...did I say that, or did you just put those words in my mouth? My question is what that has to do with anything. Immigration is a separate issue. There's a problem there. We need to fix it one way or another. However, we still need to fix healthcare, regardless of that totally separate issue. I'm sorry, I don't get taken in by the right-wing's attempt to distract attention from the real issue like this.

The public option will encourage many businesses that now offer healthcare benefits to drop them and allow their workers to use the public option instead. Since most people have insurance THROUGH their work, this will millions of people, and millions of jobs in the insurance industry as well. We don't know yet what that cost will be - and we basically have no real way to gauge it either.

What was the verb in the emboldened part? I'm not nitpicking, in this case, it actually makes a big difference.

Yes, there could be losses of jobs in the insurance industry. However, don't you think there would then be more jobs in the government to take care of the same people who just had private insurance?

Finally - the Medicare cuts - any source on what they are going to cut and what they are going to keep? If so, I'd like to see it. It may make me feel better.

Why does it matter?

 

[Magic Man]

Zeph, are we to the point in our society where we are so constrained by political correctness that we cannot point out or acknowledge that race and genetics and lifestyle play a factor in healthcare?

By the way, try to get over your freakout about me mentioning race as a factor, and be objective about my point, which was this:

Norway is a country with very few different races or ethnic groups. Their immigration rate is one of the lowest in the world (wow, that's weird if it's such a great place to live!). Therefore the vast majority of their people have similar genetic, racial, and lifestyle characteristics. This creates less of a need for a wide variety of medical research, approaches, specialists, programs, etc.

The more variety and differences among a population, the higher the costs of medical care because of the need and demand for a wide variety of facilities, specialists, research, equipment, etc.

This isn't necessarily BAD - it's just a major difference between a tiny, homogenous population and a huge, extremely varied population.

So, if it's not bad, why point it out? The point about the response to your assertion about race is that it doesn't matter. So, we have a more diverse group of people. And? All we have to do is take that into account when switching over to single-payer insurance or at least a public option. All it is is a suggestion about what to be careful of, not an argument against going to one of those options, as you are trying to use it.

 

[Autodidact]

In Germany, when you are admitted to a hospital, please don't expect a private or semi private room - or TV, or anything other than a sheet between you and the other 10 or more people on the ward. Don't expect a bit of privacy - no concept there of HIPPA laws. Just lay there and listen to everyone else around you snoring, farting, throwing up, you name it. Join in if you like.

By the way, the Germans are big fans of enemas. You'll get an enema for whatever ails you. Sore throat? Try an enema first. Broken toe? ENEMA! Nosebleed? E-NE-MA! "NO TESTS FOR YOU! Not till you've had an enema!"

I am not exxagerating this.

I know an American/German married couple. They could never choose to live in the U.S., because of the insecurity around health insurance. They and their three kids will remain in Germany just so they know they will have decent health care. True story.

 

[Autodidact]

My husband has traveled all over the world - literally to over 55 countries - in his work in oil and gas. As a consequence, he has had to use medical facilities in many of these countries - since he was traveling for 6-8 months out of every year from about 1990 to 2006.

I would say that gives him a unique perspective that most people in the world, let alone in this forum, do not have.

He spent several years in the UK and many months in Norway. He had to use their medical systems while there on numerous occasions.

He also spent a lot of time in New Zealand, the Middle East, and China. He has received their medical care on several occasions, as well as the medical care in Portugal (just one time there, however).

Due to the nature of his work, he's injured himself several times overseas, and he has also gotten very, very sick a few times (travel to weird places can do that to you). In fact, he got pneumonia in China and literally nearly died. They didn't do anything for him except try to keep him comfortable - no meds, nothing.

He has told me repeatedly that none of the medical care he received in any of these places ever came close to the quality of care he's received in the US.

I know that these are only anecdotal stories that don't PROVE anything. But honestly, try to be objective about our perspective. We are two people who have traveled and lived all over the world. We both love to travel and don't approach any of these experiences or countries negatively. In fact, I love Germany and most of the countries in Europe that I've visited, and I have a lot of respect for many of their ways of doing things. (Don't ask my husband to ever return to West Africa though - that's one place he said he hates with a passion!)

My point is that we have actually LIVED in these places, BEEN there, USED these facilities and services that we're discussing here. We've experienced a broad range of healthcare systems. Our cumulative experiences do have some merit. Certainly at least as much as the musings of some Googling armchair quarterbacks. Dontcha think?

O.K., now come back to the U.S. and give up your health insurance and tell us which is better.

 

[Autodidact]

Kathryn, I believe some folks without health insurance are so desperate that they are willing to accept just about anything.

The Democrats are so inept that they too have to pass anything to save face. They are in a once in a life time position to do just about anything. Too bad they cannot agree among themselves what to do. No way this is the Republicans fault.

No, because the Republicans did such a good job of fixing the system when they had control, and they're really trying to support the Democrats in their efforts to fix their screw-up. Not their fault at all.:no:

 

[Autodidact]

Kathryn: I think there's general agreement that the quality of health care in the U.S. is comparable to other countries. There are two areas where it is dramatically worse: availability and cost. It costs at least twice as much, which is bankrupting us and hurting us in our economic competition with foreign companies, and it is much less available. Not only are many people uninsured, but just as many are under-insured. They have health insurance, and are still bankrupted by medical bills. (I see these cases every day in my work.) So it's not so much the quality of care that needs improvement, as these other two areas. This is why we're #37 in the world. Other countries have figured out how to deliver the same quality of care to everybody for half as much cost.

I repeat, only one country in the world spends more on health care in taxes than we do. (and of course, doesn't pay again in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.) If we had universal health care, we would spend fewer tax dollars, and no additional dollars, on health care. Why do you want to spend more to get less?

 

[Magic Man]

I think this subject often gets confusing because people equate "health care" with "health insurance". The quality of our health care might be as good as other countries, but the fact that so many people miss out on it is the key here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I got treated in a UK public hospital once. You know what was cool about it? It was free. And just as good as the care I've received at U.S. hospitals. The first thing they ask you at a U.S. hospital is "How will you pay?" not "How are you feeling?"

You know who else has received world-class care at UK public hospitals? Stephen Hawking. Guess whose family and friends would be out on the street in the U.S. by now, trying to pay for his medical bills and/or insurance, battling with CIGNA or Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield's "death panels" to give them their due coverage for medically necessary treatments, if one of the greatest physicists of our time had been born here? I wonder how the stress of it all would impact his health, I wonder if he would have made it this far in the U.S.

 

[JMorris]

Why do you want to spend more to get less?

its the american way. to make sure those that can afford it dont lose any comfort by having to be stuck in a "ward" with a bunch of farting & vomiting poor-o's. Kathryn shouldnt be asked to give up her private bed or tv just to save a few stinking poor-o's. that'd be unfair.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think this subject often gets confusing because people equate "health care" with "health insurance". The quality of our health care might be as good as other countries, but the fact that so many people miss out on it is the key here.

The key here is why so many folks cannot provide for themselves and need the help of others in the first place.

You cannot sit in school and refuse to learn and then go out in adult life with no valuable skills and wonder why your life sucks.

The icing on the cake is believing someone else owes you something for your poor performance.

 

[Magic Man]

The key here is why so many folks cannot provide for themselves and need the help of others in the first place.

Yes, why is insurance so expensive that some people can't afford it?

You cannot sit in school and refuse to learn and then go out in adult life with no valuable skills and wonder why your life sucks.

That's true, but irrelevant. I'm assuming you're saying anyone who can't afford healthcare purposely didn't get an education because they're lazy or stupid. That's quite a generalization, although not surprising from you.

The fact is, Rick, that even some people who worked hard in school and got the best education they could can't afford healthcare. Some people got an education and currently work hard, but due to lack of opportunities or lack of pay in their chosen profession, possibly combined with special medical problems they or their family have, they just can't afford insurance. It's not as uncommon as you'd like it to be.

The icing on the cake is believing someone else owes you something for your poor performance.

You just don't quit with the whole "All poor people are stupid and lazy", do you?

Again, the fact is that, many times, it's not "poor performance". It's lack of opportunity or other misfortunes, like certain costly medical problems that raise insurance rates for the individuals.

You still haven't responded to me any of the times I've brought up professions like teaching. Teachers don't make much money at all, but their profession is very much needed and noble. Do you fault the teacher who can't pay for medical insurance? Should that teacher instead try starting an unnecessary business or go into a much less important profession just to make more money? Wouldn't it be better for those people to be able to teach and afford medical insurance?

You always forget that not everyone can't afford stuff like healthcare because they're lazy or unproductive. Focusing on those who are lazy or unproductive is dishonest and unhelpful. We all agree that people should do their fair share, so no one will argue with you in regards to lazy people. So, just drop that part, and get back to reality here, huh?