Republican, Conservative option for US Healthcare Reform

[Autodidact]

I'm holding out hope for Rick yet. Once he confronts and admits the facts, it may change his mind.

 

[Alceste]

You want to talk about exceptions? Yes, you proved your point about deaths. These children where covered by government insurance right? They where shuffled around, something like that. I know you cannot shuffle a child when they have a fever.

I changed the subject because I do not want to get tied down with the details of a small percentage. Are you saying these exceptions will not exist under a single payer system as well?

No, they were not insured by private insurance OR the government, and they die because they are not insured. Maybe their parents delayed seeking medical care because they could not afford to pay out of pocket, and by the time they got to the emergency room it was too late. I dunno, I didn't read the whole study.

In Texas - the worst state in the US for this problem - one in five children is not insured by the government or the private sector. It's not a "slipping through the cracks" thing, it's a "throw them off a cliff" thing.

 

[Autodidact]

I changed the subject because I do not want to get tied down with the details of a small percentage. Are you saying these exceptions will not exist under a single payer system as well?

And why are you ignoring the two key facts: We are paying twice as much for a system that's not as good?

 

[Reverend Rick]

And why are you ignoring the two key facts: We are paying twice as much for a system that's not as good?

Auto, if this was true, I should be receiving a rebate check not being asked to finance this trillion dollar bill.

In a perfect world, YOU ARE CORRECT. :yes:

If every patient that received health care actually listened to their doctor, took their medicine, watched their diet, managed their diabetes correctly, exercised, AND quit smoking, WE COULD SAVE TRIPLE!

I could even get on board if EVERY AMERICAN paid an additional 5% income tax.

It is when you expect only the elite to foot this trillion dollars when the cost will be undoubtedly more, that I have to balk. I have to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how we are even going to service our debt n the future even if the government seized all the wealth in this country.

 

[Zephyr]

I could even get on board if EVERY AMERICAN paid an additional 5% income tax.

Yes, because 5% of a millionaire's income is worth just as much as 5% of a homeless man's.

 

[T-Dawg]

Yes, because 5% of a millionaire's income is worth just as much as 5% of a homeless man's.

Actually, I think it would be signifigantly more... I don't think the rich should be taxed a higher percentage simply because they have more money, but they should be taxed on income that doesn't involve labor, such as corporate profits (which currently are taxed and probably need to be taxed more), inheritance (especially in the upper class), and they should also get tax penalties if they don't work.

 

[Zephyr]

Actually, I think it would be signifigantly more... I don't think the rich should be taxed a higher percentage simply because they have more money, but they should be taxed on income that doesn't involve labor, such as corporate profits (which currently are taxed and probably need to be taxed more), inheritance (especially in the upper class), and they should also get tax penalties if they don't work.

Tell me, who would a tax increase hurt more: Somebody making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or somebody just barely living paycheck to paycheck? That 5% would hurt the poor in a hugely disproportionate way.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Tell me, who would a tax increase hurt more: Somebody making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or somebody just barely living paycheck to paycheck? That 5% would hurt the poor in a hugely disproportionate way.

Here is the problem, they would receive health care which would help them. What little they would pay in taxes should be well worth it to them but they value money more than their health.

Once again, a poor person can get government health care already. We are talking about people with taxable income, not the poor.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Once again, a poor person can get government health care already. We are talking about people with taxable income, not the poor.

Yet those right above the poverty level, who cannot afford insurance, are left out of any "Government Health Care".
These are the people living paycheck to paycheck. No frills. No unnecessary expenses.
Work 40 hrs a week, pay their taxes, but have absolutely no disposable income.
They do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare, or state sponsored programs.

These are not imaginary people.
This is me, many of my friends and coworkers.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, if this was true, I should be receiving a rebate check not being asked to finance this trillion dollar bill.

It is true. If we had single payer, we would be paying less in taxes, and about half as much overall. If you are arguing against single payer, then you are taking my tax dollars to make sure that people don't get health care.

In a perfect world, YOU ARE CORRECT. :yes:

Not in a perfect world, Rick, in this world. In this world, we pay twice as much for health care as any other country. In this world, we pay more IN TAXES than any other country but one. Then we pay the same amount all over again in health insurance.

In this world, the real one, the one we live in, we are going broke to make sure that children don't get care. It's expensive to make sure a certain number of children die, and a certain number of families go bankrupt, and our industry can't compete with the Canadians, but, darn it, it's worth it--to you.

You have not confronted the facts, Rick. The facts are that we are paying more to get less. The question is, is it really worth it to you for the country and individual families to go broke, just to make sure that jamaesi can't get treatment?

If every patient that received health care actually listened to their doctor, took their medicine, watched their diet, managed their diabetes correctly, exercised, AND quit smoking, WE COULD SAVE TRIPLE!

True, and irrelevant.
We're not talking about forcing people to do things. We're talking about making health care available vs. making sure it's not available. Regardless of whether people took better care of their own health or not, it is a FACT that we could save billions of dollars by going to a single-payer system, any single-payer system.

Although, if more people have preventive care, more people would probably take better care of their health as well.

I could even get on board if EVERY AMERICAN paid an additional 5% income tax.

Rick, you're not listening to me. If we had single payer, every American could pay 5% less in income tax. Why is it worth it to you to pay more, just to make sure that some people don't have health care?

It is when you expect only the elite to foot this trillion dollars when the cost will be undoubtedly more, that I have to balk. I have to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how we are even going to service our debt n the future even if the government seized all the wealth in this country.

You're ignoring reality again. We're going broke subsidizing the health insurance industry, a huge industry that is generating tremendous profits, an industry whose sole business is denying people health care. It's very expensive to pay an enormous industry to deny people health care. Let's stop doing it, and use 1/10 of what we pay them for a few more doctors and nurses.

Instead of paying account clerks, managers, executives and CEOs of health insurance companies to deny people care, let's use the same money to pay for doctors, nurses and therapists to provide care.

To do the opposite seems retarded to me.

Maybe you can explain why it's worth the U.S. and the families in it going broke, just so we can maintain the health insurance industry.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is the problem, they would receive health care which would help them. What little they would pay in taxes should be well worth it to them but they value money more than their health.

Once again, a poor person can get government health care already. We are talking about people with taxable income, not the poor.

As usual, you are mistaken on the facts. Your policies fit a world that doesn't exist. Million of poor Americans right now have no health care but the emergency room. The emergency room is the most expensive and least effective way to provide health care. What kind of shape would you be in if the only care you received was via the emergency room? Again, why would you rather pay more to provide worse care, when we could pay less to provide better? I just don't get it. It's crazy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I just don't get it. It's crazy.

What I don't get is why people feel entitled to health care? They believe it is their right to spend other folks money.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not that anyone's "entitled" to health care, Rick. We're not entitled to health care, or a public education, or the fire department, or even a common defense. It's that we have learned that it's better for everyone if all of us have access to those things.

It's better for me if you can call the fire department when your house is burning down, so mine doesn't catch on fire.

It's better for me if your kids get a public education, so they can function as citizens and taxpayers.

It's better for me if you get health care, so I don't catch your infectious disease or have to support you when you become disabled.

Now would you answer my questions?

 

[Reverend Rick]

As usual, you are mistaken on the facts. Your policies fit a world that doesn't exist. Million of poor Americans right now have no health care but the emergency room. The emergency room is the most expensive and least effective way to provide health care.

No questions there

What kind of shape would you be in if the only care you received was via the emergency room?

The care that would keep me alive.

Again, why would you rather pay more to provide worse care, when we could pay less to provide better

Saying it does not make it so. If what you say is true, why does our heath care reform package have an expense north of a trillion dollars?

 

[Autodidact]

No questions there The care that would keep me alive. Saying it does not make it so. If what you say is true, why does our heath care reform package have an expense north of a trillion dollars?

Because it's not what I'm advocating: single payer. The health insurance companies bought off the legislature, so we're keeping them around. And yes, I'm angry about it. So, we're going to get reform, but it's not going to save money, it's going to cost money, so we can continue to subsidize private health insurance. If we could go directly to single-payer, it would be a huge savings.

 

[Autodidact]

No questions there The care that would keep me alive.

No, Rick, you can't get chemotherapy or radiation treatments in an ER. You would get pain pills, maybe surgery, but no actual treatment. [qutoe]Saying it does not make it so. If what you say is true, why does our heath care reform package have an expense north of a trillion dollars?[/quote]
Are you trying to say I'm not accurate? Have I ever, in all the time you've been talking to me, made a false factual statement? I am very careful to ensure that I never make a factual error. If I do, I ask that people correct me and give me a cite for the correct cites. Do you want me to reprint the charts you never looked at, the ones that show we're spending more than any nation on earth, and are only ranked 37th in the quality of our system?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If we could go directly to single-payer, it would be a huge savings.

OK, my idea of single payer is like medicare. Medicare only pays 80% and has this doughnut hole. Many people on medicare also pay for medigold which they like, but Obama wants to shut it down. For many, they find it hard to even find a primary care provider because doctors hate medicare because there is very little profit if any seeing these patients.

Older folks who are on a limited income could lose their house or life savings just paying the remaining 20% of their medical bill.

Then there is medicaid. This is the other single payer system we have here. It is for folks who have no money. It pays 100% of the bill and the patient never ever even see's a doctor bill. The thing is, this system is bankrupting several states.

The doctors I talk to don't make much money off of either system unless they participate in fraud and abuse. It is rampant in some areas.

If it where not for private health insurance, there would be no profit for many doctors. Most doctors become specialised because primary care physicians make peanuts compared to their counterparts.

I personally do not like the though of one size fits all medical care. All these cost savings are code words for limiting care. I want choices and options and I do not want to stand in line. It would be a death sentence for me.

I may be having my next surgery in India. What do you think of that?

 

[Aquitaine]

What I don't get is why people feel entitled to health care? They believe it is their right to spend other folks money.

Well in my opinion, because it keeps them alive and healthy, and in an ideal world, so that they can then dedicate themselves to their Working life, and therefore return the favour to other people.

Surely it is better for a country in the long run (and much more Moral) if it's Citizens all have access to Education, Policing, Defense, Healthcare, a Career/Employer, and a suitable Pension?

 

[Autodidact]

OK, my idea of single payer is like medicare.

Medicare is one way to do it. Medicare for everyone would be single payer.

Medicare only pays 80% and has this doughnut hole.

It beats the heck out of nothing.

Many people on medicare also pay for medigold which they like, but Obama wants to shut it down.

No. If you had single-payer, you would be able to buy supplemental, as in Canada and England.

For many, they find it hard to even find a primary care provider because doctors hate medicare because there is very little profit if any seeing these patients.

Sorry, once again, working with low-income people and seniors, I'm in a position to know the facts. They LOVE medicare. There is not a big problem with getting providers, except in some rural areas for some specialties.

Older folks who are on a limited income could lose their house or life savings just paying the remaining 20% of their medical bill.

Wait a minute, your argument against single-payer is now that it wouldn't do enough? You do realize, don't you, that you're contradicting yourself, and saying the exact opposite of what you've been saying?

Then there is medicaid. This is the other single payer system we have here. It is for folks who have no money. It pays 100% of the bill and the patient never ever even see's a doctor bill. The thing is, this system is bankrupting several states.

Obviously, if we have both medicare and medicaid, we don't have single-payer, do we? I disagree that medicaid is bankrupting the states. What's bankrupting the states is that the economy is down the toilet. In any case, if you had single payer, you wouldn't have various states involved.

If it where not for private health insurance, there would be no profit for many doctors. Most doctors become specialised because primary care physicians make peanuts compared to their counterparts.

And yet Australia and Holland and all the other countries with single-payer have plenty of doctors.

I personally do not like the though of one size fits all medical care. All these cost savings are code words for limiting care. I want choices and options and I do not want to stand in line. It would be a death sentence for me.

You can buy supplemental.

I may be having my next surgery in India. What do you think of that?

I think it's a good example of how lousy the U.S. system is.

Rick, you actually don't know anything about health care reform, do you? You don't know what kind of system they have in Germany and how it differes from Britain or Australia, do you? You don't know how much it costs, how many doctors they have, what quality of care they get, how well they like it, or anything else, do you?

Rather, you're operating out of typical Republican ignorance. That's how we got in this mess, Rick. If we want to find our way out of it, we have to exert ourselves and learn about reality. Reality is that we have one of the most expensive, mediocre health systems on earth. Aren't you the least bit curious as to how other countries have already happily solved this problem?

And you're still ignoring my questions.

So at this point I'll assume you have no answer. You have no justification whatsoever for why our country should spend twice as much to provide less care to fewer people. The answer is just, "because you like it." Sorry, I don't think you should be able to force me to spend my tax money because you like it, do you?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sorry, once again, working with low-income people and seniors, I'm in a position to know the facts. They LOVE medicare.

My dad think it sucks.

Wait a minute, your argument against single-payer is now that it wouldn't do enough? You do realize, don't you, that you're contradicting yourself, and saying the exact opposite of what you've been saying?

No, if we where to do this, we should do this right not half arsed.

Rick, you actually don't know anything about health care reform, do you? You don't know what kind of system they have in Germany and how it differes from Britain or Australia, do you? You don't know how much it costs, how many doctors they have, what quality of care they get, how well they like it, or anything else, do you?

Rather, you're operating out of typical Republican ignorance. That's how we got in this mess, Rick. If we want to find our way out of it, we have to exert ourselves and learn about reality. Reality is that we have one of the most expensive, mediocre health systems on earth. Aren't you the least bit curious as to how other countries have already happily solved this problem?

No, I have spent some time in other countries. My German friends get paid time off and everything provided for them. They love their health system. They have dental and everything. They also pay draconian taxes.

And you're still ignoring my questions.

I'm trying not to.

So at this point I'll assume you have no answer. You have no justification whatsoever for why our country should spend twice as much to provide less care to fewer people. The answer is just, "because you like it." Sorry, I don't think you should be able to force me to spend my tax money because you like it, do you?

I pay taxes not spend taxes. I could give a fiddlers fart about government assistance. If I was to change my mind, I would want a good system which I believe my government is incapable of providing.

If I was in control of things, I would have you start a single payer system in the state of your choosing. If that model was sucessful, I would admit I was wrong and endorse your ideas 100%.