"Keep the guvmint out of my medicare!": Insurance Lobby Organizes Elderly Hecklers

Additionally, let's look at the experiments we have so far here beyond the federal social medicine programs..

Massachusetts is working on it

Hawaii tried it to some degree too.

If it can't even be run successfully on a state level, and it's a failure on the fed level, show me the evidence that we can do it, forget healthcare, show me one program that has maintained/increased service and stayed on promised budget. I'm glad EU has managed it, there is zero evidence that we can.

 

Surely that's a fault with the American people then rather then the actual idea itself?

 

Absolutely, but more importantly/specifically, American politicians (and by proxy private company interests). But essentially you are right, that has been my point all along. These people can't pump their own gas, they don't have the answers.

Nexxo can dismiss high taxes and deficits as the price to pay for living in sophisticated society all he wants (and in many regards, I agree with him) but eventually, you have to pay your bills. If the system goes insolvent, how sophisticated is that? The nearest hospital to my house no longer accepts medicare patients because it is no longer cost feasible. They are looking after the needs of the most people. If medicare bankrupts the hospital, how does that effect everyone else?

 

Why not, anti public-option people are essentially saying a slightly altered version of that "IF you get cancer, I want you to have a healthcare system which will drive your family into debt"

Medicare is going into debt, there are reasons for these problems however this doesn't mean the system isn't a million times better than private insurance and it doesn't mean the problems can't be solved. One thing you could do is create a progressive taxation system where more income = tax, but this simply isn't possible to even discuss since people have been deluded with the ridiculous notion that having more money means you've worked harder and if you're poor its because you dont work hard, deluded by the very people who would be hit hard by changes like this; business interests, media etc...

Government ran systems pretty much tend to be cheaper and have less admin costs than private, there is a large falicy that ironically government cannot run or be trusted with government! These things are usually always promulgated by people like the cato institue which they have outright stated is a policy think tank for people who want less government, so it doesn't shock me in the least a study they carried out vindicates their world views and members, almost entirely made up of business interests who would be damaged massively by UHC

 

You don't know what you are talking about:

* The top 50% of income earners pay 96.5% of federal income taxes, while the lower 50% pay just 3.5%.
* The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes
* The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher)
* The top 5% pay 54.4%
* The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher)

I have news for you, the ones in favor or are running a failed program are not real likely to report the problems, so just provide some contradictory facts. All I asked for is one American example. I provided several examples of waste and insolvency and you talk about myths. I can provide more if you like if you just provide one. The most efficiently run programs in the US fed are ones contracted to private businesses. Congress has outsourced their own cafeteria, their medical insurance and their retirement pensions are run by private organizations. They also don't allow unions in congress because it could impede operations.

 

Don't worry DXR, I have raised two teen-age kids, I have a high tolerance for petulance.

 

I said that because it is a bad thing to wish other people to have cancer...

 

I understood and appreciated it.

 

shame an NHS does not work there... i wonder if it would work if it was run like the army or the law system...

 

It's an interesting question and one I don't have a great answer for since the duties and measures of success are so far separated.

 

Do you even know what progressive income tax means? From 1971-1981 the top rate tax on Americans was 77%, the bottom rate was 14%, now the top rate is 35% with the bottom rate dropping to only 10%. And its shocking that the systems developed under a progressive taxation system in place since 1917 is lacking funding?! You're a child who can do nothing more than spew bias talking points that have been pasted on every other conservative blog. I call you and your like children constantly because this is exactly how they action, you said you have kids you might recognise the behaviour; they solidly believe something, you introduce an idea which goes against how they usually think and then.....they fight as hard, long and crazily as possible because they "have to be right".

You say "failed program" like the current system is anything but a disgusting failure. I believe it was 60% of all bankrupcys were directly linked to healthcare? 80% of which had "private coverage" but still went bankrupt? Here is an example of working healthcare: Every industrialised nation in the world except America. Seriously just hire a couple hundred brits, we'll set up your system and go home.


Bill Wendell was the vicepresident of Cigna, he became a whistleblower over the disgusting acts of private healthcare, including admitting the fact that medicare is up to 700% more efficient than private health care. Hell even take the post office, its cheaper than any other courier and still makes a profit. Private business's only care is it's stakeholders, it will **** over everyone including it's customers in this pursuit. Private busines certainly has hold on washington; welcome to lobbying, this certainly means nothing about whether they are better or not.

 

Wow.... I know I normally do not agree with some of the things you say R&C... but very nice post.

+rep

 

+1 rep

 

Good post, but I'd prefer it if Rum&Coke refrains from the personal name calling. His arguments are fine without them.

I would highly recommmend that people read the link he provided in his post. It is the reality of US health care today.

 

Yes, I do know what it means, do you? Even with your example 14% is less than 35% is it not? You know who else knows what a progressive tax rate is? The congressional budget office does. Now watch out here, I'm gonna refer to a wacky right-wing blog (the earlier quote I used was from fairtax.org I have never read a left or right wing blog in my life).

The CBO makes this available in pdf form to but I'm using the blog, I hope that fact doesn't discredit me.

The rates have changed over the years at the whim of congress but it has always been progressive. I don't have to be right, I just want the facts to speak for themselves not just a bunch of wivestales and myths spouted out on tv an internet. You can argue about what the appropriate rates should be but the fact remains, it is a progressive system. Rates where lowered during Kennedy, Reagan and Bush W and in every case, the revenues rose. Just because congress can spend the money faster than they can haul it in is another argument of fiscal responsibility which is the center of my argument.

I am not pro-business, I am pro free market, there is a key difference. Even so, if I accept your comparison of evils between government and powerful private companies, the government can always MAKE you comply through force. You keep saying that company's **** over their customers but it's still a mutual contract. And, even though it could be painful, you can always walk away and shop around. And if that is the case, and you work for a private company, who are you ****ing over every day for your paycheck, who do your friends **** over for theirs and your parents, etc.

The only successful example you could come up with is the mail. That's fantastic. (careful more wacky right-wing propaganda coming your way...)

CNN/Fortune - Dear USPS: Consider privatizing

Huffington Post - Post Office May Cut Weekly Mail Delivery Days

Wall Street Pit - U.S. Postal Service Set to Lose Nearly $7B in 2009


Obama thinks that the private guys are doing it better.

Did you know that most of the packaging delivery the USPS delivers is carried on either private airlines or Fedex and UPS?

It is also illegal for companies to compete with the USPS in regard to carrying letters. In the early 1980's a small company in Rochester NY started delivering for private companies and citizens and could deliver same day for less than the post office, they were sued by the fed, their customers raised money for them to stay in business but they lost. There are several books on the subject of mail monopoly. Every monopoly, be it through government service or private enterprise in our history has been a direct product of the government intervention to the detriment of the consumer.

 

yeah rum, that I can agree with you on- we do need higher taxes to get us out of debt, just it seems to me they are spending way more and no plans to stop along with higher taxes under obama.. with the republicans- the taxes are low but look at the deficit, it always goes up.. under clinton the taxes were really high imo, but along with a growing economy and no major wars at the time- he put us in surplus.. the internet bubble busted at the end of his 8 (and the guy was a douche for cheating on his wife but whatever), but facts are facts we were out of debt.. don't get me started on that gore jackass (gets the nobel for his carbon credits- what's up with that)

in 2008, most people in the US paid between 10 and 20% tax ($100,000 and under).. people making $357,700 paid 28% and anything over that was 35%.. under clinton we were looking at 3-4% higher for the average but on the high end it was about 10% more, it wasn't outrageous like during carters years and it got the job done

I dunno if your old enough to remember carter.. I was a kid myself- but we had Libyan idiots highjacking our planes, deadlocked in a cold war with russia, taxes were way out of control, kind of like what you guys have in the uk XD j/k.. reagan pretty much turned it all around- great men don't come along too often and he was one of them (I'm sure you'll hear moans about his domestic agenda, but if you look at what he accomplished overall it was pretty amazing)

now the modern day republican seems to think reducing taxes is the only way.. noone here (who's sane) wants to go back to the carter years.. paying more in taxes is fine as long as the government uses it to dig us out of debt- not spend more for stupid bills as seems to be the case.. under obama- the whitehouse has already projected a 9 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years- that's from the horses mouth

 

Be careful giving too much credit/blame to the pres. The house of representatives hold all the strings when it comes to money. Some guys like Clinton/Reagan/Kennedy stepped out and drove an agenda and a lot of times congress gives them the rope knowing people will blame him if it's the wrong path. But the source is the House.

A great example is Clinton, he was in office for 8 years, but didn't balance the budget until his last 2 years why? The republicans ran a successful campaign on reform and Clinton went kicking and screaming for a lot of it. Who remembers the government shutdowns while the budget was at a standoff? But here's the rub, after Bush got elected, they blew it and went right back to spending again so it was all a wash, but Clinton gets the credit. Same goes for Reagan, he gets the lion's share of the credit for turning things around but the congress passed those budgets he signed. They also spent more money than they took in despite the fact that revenues to the country doubled by the end of his presidency. When we refer to historical moments in time, it's a lot easier to refer to a Kennedy/Clinton/Reagan than a Tip O'Neal/Newt Gingrich. (sorry, off topic)

Each side claims to be our salvation against the other but when it comes down to it, when either is in charge and have control of central government, they act in their self interest and the taxpayer is always the one to bear the burden and the net result is the same which is why I'm done with all of them. I'm interested in lifting my fellow citizen than any one man in Washington.

 

oops, posted in the wrong forum

 

Not really. Arnold Relman, former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (1977-91) argued that health care is not like any other business.

• First, when a consumer needs it most they are often least able (for obvious reasons) to shop around for the best deal.
• Second, health care is such a complex topic that it is very difficult for a consumer to make an informed choice. Where health care is a for-profit enterprise, there will be a lot of persuasive power brought to bear on the consumer. All sorts of 'trading standards' need to be applied to ensure that people are informed correctly, are not ripped off by con-men or incompetents and are not sold stuff they do not need.
• Third, a free market economy is driven by incentive --what people want and what they are prepared to pay for it-- while health care is something that people need. In a free market, where is the incentive to treat a patient? It is in the fees you can charge. So the objective of private health care is not to manage or cure ailments, but to administer tests and treatments; that is where the money is. The main reason for high health care costs in the US is the ever-expanding use of expensive kinds of diagnosis and treatment. Physicians in most other advanced countries have access to virtually the same resources, but use them less.

The consequences of the commercialization of the US health system are profound. Investors now own about 20 percent of nonpublic general hospitals, almost all specialty hospitals, and most freestanding facilities for ambulatory patients, such as walk-in clinics, imaging centers, and ambulatory surgical centers. These medical care businesses, like other businesses, need profits to satisfy their investors, and for this purpose they use marketing and advertising, directed at physicians and the general public. To remain competitive, many not-for-profit hospitals promote their bottom line just like their for-profit counterparts, vigorously advertising their facilities and services to the public. No other health care system is as focused on generating income as yours, and in no other country is medical care marketed and advertised so aggressively as if it were just another commodity in trade. This increases health costs, while hospitals concentrate on the delivery of profitable, rather than effective services. It also favors those who can pay over those who need medical care but cannot afford it.

 

I assume you are talking about emergency care, in many cases, who is likely to show up? An EMS team. And in a lot of cases, the are a privately owned contracted company who have had an amazing impact on trauma and heart attack survival rates. If you are talking about emergency walk-in business, a lot of that are walking in because of the state-mandated rule that makes hospitals care for people that cannot pay but go to emergency not necessarily because of the urgency of their situation but to exploit that mandate, in California a large portion of those patients are illegal immigrants. You can argue the virtues of whether we should or can care for people in these cases but how is a company expected to perform with the established free market rule and principles when so much is imposed on them. As I mentioned above, medicare is yet another force imposed where they are paying $.20 on the dollar for care. Who is going to eat that margain? No business can absorb such costs so they get carried over to the people who can. Like I have said before, you would have to go back in time to make an accurate comparison.

In the case of non-urgent care, you are just wrong about people shopping around. My daughter had a severe case of kidney stones which ultimately required surgery. We didn't have a lot of time to act but we did the research and found one of the best urologists in our area was at a hospital that would not have been our first choice based on the facilities best choice but he was amazing and she got the best care. When women get pregnant, the most common question is "who is your OB"? After birth, the new question is "Who is your pediatrician?" We found a great OB and recommend her to this day even though our kids are 17-18. I can tell you dozens of stories in that regard.

See above answer for some of this but I'm not opposed to the government, or any other reputable organization distributing information if they have it. Frankly, I have depended on the testimony of people in my community to find the best care and have seen the difference.

I admit that I could be out of my depth here, not being as involved in the industry as much as you but are you telling me that money is the only thing that motivates health care professionals? Even so, how did we manage before all the socialization of our system? Between the 1940's and early 1970's, people got the care they needed, doctors and nurses got paid very well and people were not thrown into bankruptsy over their care. In fact, it was government intervention that started the whole trend in the first place. During wartime, wages were frozen so in an effort to compete for workers, employers offered to provide help with an expense that most families had to deal with (not everyone had a mortgage or even a car) which was healthcare. So even the evils of the healthcare system are a product of central government intervention. There were no complaint of over testing back when I was growing up. I think you will find that tort reform would relieve the stress of the amount of testing more than anything. Doctors feel compelled now to make sure every possibility is checked to avoid a lawsuit. We are in a dire situation in regard to good OB's because they are the most heavily sued. And malpractice insurance is yet another significant expense passed on to the patient.

besides, If we are to take the doctor's word for what is best as in you writing then should we listen to the AMA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html