188 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

"We must continue to ask ourselves: how does the U.K./France/Switzerland provide universal health care at 50% of the cost per capita that the U.S. incurs, and still have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality?????"


I have answered this in detail before, so I will simply gloss over the salient points.

The reason they are able to commit more towards socialist programs is that WE bear the burden of being the military policeman for the world. they spend 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount of GDP that we do on military because they know we will take care of the "messy business" wherever and whenever it arises.

You are misunderstanding the relevant statistic. They spend half as much per capita.

This has nothing to do with military spending. This has to do with achieving the efficiencies of a single payer system -- without a Rube Goldberg scheme of insurance companies, secondary insurance companies, 300 different yet curiously overlapping government programs, dual state/federal systems for Medicare, Medicaid, etc......



uber, those comics are fantastic.

[FolsomVW]

In case it hasn't already been raised, one poll in and perhaps the best opposition talking point bites the dust.

[The Average Joe]

You are misunderstanding the relevant statistic. They spend half as much per capita.

This has nothing to do with military spending. This has to do with achieving the efficiencies of a single payer system -- without a Rube Goldberg scheme of insurance companies, secondary insurance companies, 300 different yet curiously overlapping government programs, dual state/federal systems for Medicare, Medicaid, etc......

They also don't live in the most litigious society ever.

this (lawsuit abuse)is not an important issue in France for two reasons. First, since 2002 there has been a national no-fault compensation scheme. Second, the number of attorneys per capita in France is far smaller than in the United States.

[moscat]

These are historical times we are living in. I bet that our grandparents never throught we will see the day that health care for all was ever going to happen after almost 100 years of trying. And of course, at a staggering projected price of $1 trillion through 10 years. Although it is a figure unfathomable to grasp, about half this figure has already been spent that past 8 years overseas.

It is admirable that after almost a century, it has become a reality. And it was achieved with the leadership of black person, a white person, and a woman. This is something that has not happened in the history of our country. We are witnesses to share our story with our grandkids and future generations.

[The Average Joe]

Which was exactly my point. Bordercol was asking why the French system was less expensive. I was offering 1 reason.

Looking to the big picture, Steyn ran a repeat of an article from last summer that pretty much sums up the costs of government care not related to $$

True costs of gov run healthcare

[FolsomVW]

Which was exactly my point. Bordercol was asking why the French system was less expensive. I was offering 1 reason.

Looking to the big picture, Steyn ran a repeat of an article from last summer that pretty much sums up the costs of government care not related to $$

True costs of gov run healthcare

This Guy is just saying, so what if we don't have the best outcomes...and pulls the granma fear cards from the holsters. Same old story. Come on, the debate is over (almost in the Debate), so time and experience with the real thing is all I'm interested in terms of judging this thing. Then we can fill the gaps and make other changes as necessary. I think everyone is pretty tired of hearing the worn out pessimism.

[swmr545]

Assuming the bill is found to be constitutional, and when Repubs take back a majority in Congress, I'm curious as to what aspects of the bill would the Repubs like to repeal?

Would you like to see them repeal the whole thing or part of it?

If part of it, which parts?
--------------

Here's an opinion piece from a Republican:
http://www.cnn.com/2...tegy/index.html

[bordercolliefan]

Actually - med mal is not a significant financial burden on the French system - and least according to the source you cut-and-pasted from:

Q. How do they control health care costs?
A. Three ways. First, the government negotiates prices for doctors, hospitals and prescription drugs. Second, France has far fewer private health insurers, so the system requires less expenditure on administrative costs for marketing, underwriting and managing complex reimbursement rules. Third, France’s investor-owned insurance sector is far smaller than in the United States, and its medical-industrial complex is far less powerful, so the government can negotiate stronger cost controls.

Q. Medical malpractice has become an issue now in the debate over health care reform in this country. How much of every health care Euro in France goes to pay for malpractice costs?
A. I’ve never seen such an estimate, but even in the U.S. this figure is much smaller than people generally believe — less than 1 percent of health care expenditures.

From - http://prescriptions...-abroad-france/

Thanks for the explanation, Cheesesteak. That is helpful.

I am in favor of tort reform. But economists who have looked at the issue tell us that the cost savings is very minute (like 1/2 of 1%) -- it is not the panacea that Republicans like to imagine. Also, as I keep saying like a broken record, we already have tort reform in California. It's called MICRA, was enacted in the 1980's, and limits pain and suffering damages to $250k in med-mal cases. (If you don't believe me, look it up). As you can see, it hasn't done much to stop the increase in health costs in California.

[bordercolliefan]

Assuming the bill is found to be constitutional, and when Repubs take back a majority in Congress, I'm curious as to what aspects of the bill would the Repubs like to repeal?

Would you like to see them repeal the whole thing or part of it?

If part of it, which parts?
--------------

Yes, let's move on to something more productive... thinking up great slogans for the Republicans!

How about:

"Let's go back to the good old days when health insurers could drop sick people!!"

or

"Let's take this country back for the health insurers!!"

[uberman]

"Let's go back to the good old days when health insurers could drop sick people!!"

or

"Let's take this country back for the health insurers!!"

Could you imagine if the Republicans try to repeal this law in '10 or '12? These are the arguments they're gonna have to make, and then it will become abundantly clear where they stand on Health Care in America, firmly rooted in the pockets of the health insurance companies taking interest solely in THEIR bottom lines.

[The Average Joe]

This Guy is just saying, so what if we don't have the best outcomes...and pulls the granma fear cards from the holsters. Same old story. Come on, the debate is over (almost in the Debate), so time and experience with the real thing is all I'm interested in terms of judging this thing. Then we can fill the gaps and make other changes as necessary. I think everyone is pretty tired of hearing the worn out pessimism.

No, you misunderstand completely. he is talking about he relationship between government and individual, and the permanence of the shift away from the individual.

Bottom line, O originally said this was necessary because costs were out of control. I was tentatively optomistic because, hey, who isn't for cutting the costs? However, this law does NOTHING to control costs (other than creating new taxes, and cutting from other areas to "make it deficit neutral"), it seriously warps the commerce clause to include non-activity, and it has severely polarized the pols, and the populace.
This is not a good law.

[Bill Z]

I have one question for all of those in favor of this Healthcare bill. And I really want honest thoughtful straightforward answers.

What do you think of the precedence of passing legislation requiring US citizens to purchase a particular service and if they don't, they will get fined?

Cuz that's what this POS legislation does. What's next, fining people if they don't buy anti-viral software for their computers? How about fining people for having unhealthy eating habits? Maybe we should fine homeowner's that don't have burglar alarms installed? Or let's fine people that don't hire lawyers to create trust funds for their families. Maybe we should fine people that don't also have whole life insurance?

So, you can ignore answering the rest of the questions as they are mostly rhetorical to illustrate my point. I look forward to well thought out meaningful dialogue on the bolded question above. What ever happened to Freedom of Choice?

[SmartMoney]

What ever happened to Freedom of Choice?

Sir, you mean you really don't know the answer to that question? Our rights are eroding right in front of our face and you don't see it?

Surely you jest.

[swmr545]

I have one question for all of those in favor of this Healthcare bill. And I really want honest thoughtful straightforward answers.

What do you think of the precedence of passing legislation requiring US citizens to purchase a particular service and if they don't, they will get fined?

Cuz that's what this POS legislation does. What's next, fining people if they don't buy anti-viral software for their computers? How about fining people for having unhealthy eating habits? Maybe we should fine homeowner's that don't have burglar alarms installed? Or let's fine people that don't hire lawyers to create trust funds for their families. Maybe we should fine people that don't also have whole life insurance?

So, you can ignore answering the rest of the questions as they are mostly rhetorical to illustrate my point. I look forward to well thought out meaningful dialogue on the bolded question above. What ever happened to Freedom of Choice?

While I've never been a proponent of the health insurance reform bill (I do think some aspects are good though), it's a slippery slope we will be going down. I don't think we should be forced to purchase something. That said, at least we will have some freedom into which company we want to buy coverage from.

Here's a question for you all:

The govt now says that health care is a right; as a basic civil right, what avenues can the govt take to ensure everyone is given access to this right?