RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mcbride -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 6:53:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

The problem isn't that ours "couldn't work" or "wouldn't lower costs" it's that the legal system is designed to insure that it can't possibly work.

In states where they've limited liability for doctors (I believe Texas is one, I may be wrong) to some rational number (I seem to recall a "cap" of $100,000.00 as opposed to the multiple unending millions), health care is more 'affordable"...still not cheap but better than in states where these caps don't exist.

Most of the countries where the costs are significantly lower than our own, are also countries where these types of highly rational changes have been successfully implemented.


Lookie, I can't bring myself to believe that the legendary American zeal for innovation and problem-solving has grown so timid that it can't even try to fix this problem.

There's plenty of evidence that the legal hurdles are a negligible part of the problem, but even if that weren't so, I'd be shocked if Americans gave up on saving those lives because of one small aspect of the problem.




Owner59 -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 6:56:43 PM)

Well....when one thinks..~"THE MARKET PLACE"~..can solve every problem........why worry?


Soon they`ll be dead anyway and it won`t cost a cent.


Problem solved.




Lucylastic -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 7:28:45 PM)

HOUSTON | Last year, Luis Duran drove almost 200 miles to San Antonio to have a colonoscopy because he didn't want to wait six months for an opening at a county clinic.

A few days later, the doctor in San Antonio -- a friend of a friend who had performed the screening for free -- called to break the news that Duran, 51, had advanced colon cancer and needed immediate surgery.

"I kind of broke down," recalled Duran, a machine operator whose employer had terminated his health policy. "I said, 'Doctor, I don't have insurance, and I don't have much money, but I won't refuse to pay. Please help me.'"

They say everything is bigger in Texas, and the problem of the uninsured is no exception. The Houston metropolitan area has one of the highest rates of uninsured people in America, and a health safety net imploding under the demands of too many people and too few resources. Almost one in three residents -- more than a million people -- lack health insurance, and about 400 are turned away every day from the county hospital district's call center because they can't be accommodated at any of its 23 community or school-based centers.

Those seeking care at the public hospital's ER, meanwhile, arrive with blankets and coolers full of sandwiches and drinks in anticipation of waits that may go 24 hours or longer.

"If the Affordable Care Act is overturned, the rest of the country should take a good look at the situation in Texas, because this is what happens when you keep Medicaid enrollment as low as possible and don't undertake insurance reforms," said Elena M. Marks, a health policy scholar at Rice University's James Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former city health official.

Opponents of the federal health care law see the problem of the uninsured very differently. They object not just to the price tag of expanding coverage to millions more people, but to the whole philosophy behind it.

Texans are individualistic and value their freedoms and responsibilities, said Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, who notes Medicaid spending is a big part of Texas' budget.

"Individual responsibility is about making healthy choices and taking ownership of your lifestyle -- not just about buying health insurance," Nashed said. "And you can't legislate a healthy lifestyle."

Many Uninsured Have Jobs

With its fiscally conservative philosophy and cash-strapped state budget, Texas does not offer Medicaid coverage to childless adults unless they are pregnant, disabled or elderly. Parents of children covered by welfare are eligible for the state-federal health program only if they make no more than $188 a month for a family of three.

At the same time, the proportion of Texas workers with employer-sponsored insurance is almost 10 percentage points lower than the national average of 61 percent, in part because of the state's high concentration of jobs in the agricultural and service sectors, which often lack benefits.

"Seventy percent of the people we see here are employed," said Dr. G. Bobby Kapur, associate chief of the emergency room at Ben Taub General Hospital, part of the taxpayer-supported Harris County Hospital District.



"They're hourly wage earners, nannies, [people] working in lawn care services or dry cleaning or real estate, or people working two part-time jobs and neither will pay for health care," he said. "Many are small business owners who are well-educated and well-dressed."

The problem is not too few health care providers -- although there may be a shortage of primary care doctors willing to treat Medicaid patients. Houston's hospitals are world-renowned, drawing patients from all over the globe for its highly specialized care -- primarily to those who can pay.

But the hundreds of thousands who work for small businesses, tend the city's lawns, cook its food and care for its children often lack a regular source of primary care.

Overburdened Safety Net

Add in the unemployed and undocumented immigrants, and more than a million people depend on Houston's safety net providers for their care.

"The number of uninsured in the city is four times the 300,000 patients they serve," Marks said. "They can't possible meet the demand for services, no matter how efficient they are."

The publicly supported Harris County Hospital District schedules 1.5 million outpatient visits every year, and is building primary care clinics "as fast as we can," to alleviate the crush in emergency rooms, said President and CEO David Lopez.

But sick patients are often scheduled for appointments two months after they call. Sometimes, as in Duran's case, they must wait much longer.

"I called, but they said the first appointment I could get was August 14," said Humberto Vasquez, 36, who recently joined a stream of patients heading to Ben Taub General Hospital's ER.

Vasquez said he was worried about pain in his lower abdomen and back that had lasted for two weeks, wasn't responding to over-the-counter painkillers and seemed to be getting worse.

As he walked into the emergency room, Benjamin Vasquez (no relation) was leaving, his left arm set in a cast and $100 poorer. Benjamin, a part-time bakery chef and Bible college student, had broken his arm playing soccer Monday evening and spent 24 hours in the ER; he was still wearing his red Number 12 soccer jersey and shorts.

It was his second time there; he had his appendix removed there nine years ago, gradually paying off a reduced fee of several thousand dollars, he said.

Duran, the cancer patient, was leaving after an outpatient chemotherapy treatment that cost $8, a subsidized rate. A year ago, when he was told there would be a six-month wait for a colonoscopy, his daughter, who works in a physician's office in San Antonio, asked her boss if he knew someone who could do the screening for free.

He found someone, and after that doctor diagnosed cancer, rallied a team of surgeons to operate. Duran paid only the anesthesiologist and a negotiated hospital fee.

"If I had waited six months for a colonoscopy, I would have been dead," he said.

Daunting Challenges If Law Is Upheld

Even if the health law is upheld, its proponents admit it won't be a panacea. An estimated 600,000 Houston-area residents are projected to gain insurance coverage, and many are likely to continue having trouble accessing care.

"Our guess is that the number of Medicaid providers will not increase, and there will be long waiting times to be seen," said Lopez, the hospital district administrator.

Only a third of physicians who were accepting new patients this year were taking those with Medicaid, compared with 42 percent in 2010, according to the Texas Medical Association.

The process of determining eligibility for public coverage or federal tax credits could also be hampered by the state's delay in setting up an online insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses are supposed to purchase policies beginning in 2014.

Undocumented immigrants will also be ineligible for any help since they are barred from purchasing health coverage through the exchanges.

But proponents say things will be far worse if the Supreme Court invalidates the law and the number of uninsured keeps growing.

The situation is so bad that Charles Begley, director of the Houston Health Services Research Collaborative, believes that change is coming to Texas regardless of the court's ruling.

"There's a general realization from both right and left that our health care system is in crisis," Begley said. If none of it goes through, you're going to see ... [a] response like, 'Okay, we dodged that bullet from the federal government. Now let's try to do a better job ourselves.'"


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/06/-patients-wait-in-line.html

I posted the full article because I felt it was all relevant




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 7:49:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
there's simply no denying it...we can't afford "it".

Folks, whether you agree or not, the facts don't lie....our national credit card is BEYOND maxed out and until it isn't....there simply isn't enough money for everything that everyone wants....and I would wholeheartedly agree that one of the things we SHOULD have is health care for everyone....but until it can be paid for, and the evidence (again) that we can't afford everything everyone wants is on our national credit card statement....we simply don't have enough money for everyone's desires.


As Ronnie liked to say, there you go again. It would seem likely that a country whose "national credit card is BEYOND maxed out" would attempt to cut a huge source of horrendous spending by doing some version of what almost all of its neighbours have done, since those neighbours all spend far less and get better results.

As simple as it gets.


Interesting that you use Ronnie as your example (a good one actually but...) he was also the first Prez who literally opened up the spigot....the punch bowl (giving our nation unprecedented growth....why wouldn't it..."deficits didn't matter"), and every Prez since has been scared shitless to take the punch bowl away.

In fact, other presidents before him did similar things, but not to any level comparable to Reagan.

Indeed, here are some fairly interesting links as to debt and GDP over the years:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (Debt levels, under specific presidents).

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png (showing exactly where the debt levels first skyrocketed....under....hmmmm....hold on....it's coming to me....oh yeah.....I remember now....Ronnie).

As a Republican, who has told as many people as I could get to listen for most of my adult life, that contrary to popular opinion ("Democrats only want to spend....Republicans are the true conservatives who will watch over our future financiallyy"), debt has risen under Republican presidents more often, faster and with greater volume, than under ANY democratic administration: http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

It's pure horseradish that Republicans are the guardians of your future...they steal money faster and more creatively than any Democrat....but....they're still all cut from the same cloth.

And for those who want to compare GDP (America's total 'sales" for a fiscal year), here's a link that shows that issue clearly. Scroll down and you'll find a very easy to read chart that tells you every number: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history

You'll see in 1980, Reagans first year in office, we sold or manufactured 2.881 trillion dollars in "stuff".

Our debt at that time was (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_deficit_history) roughly 900 billion.

We owed (then) 29% of what we produced in a year.

We owed 0.295 to 1 or....a little less than 1/3rd of what we produced. Using the same 5% profit picture I expressed in a previous post, putting all our personal and corporate profits (income minus expenses) towards paying same off....we'd have been done in roughly 5.50 years, not the 20+ computed above for today's debt.

Now let's move on to Reagan's last year in office.

1988.

Debt was suddenly 3.9 trillion dollars. 433% of the former amount...in just 8 years. No other president comes even remotely close on a percentage basis, yet he is one of the most revered of our 40 some presidents...and he's the one that showed every president since....how to bankrupt our country.

Our GDP in 1988? 5.1 trillion, debt then being 76.5% of everything we make and/or made.

Today?

Some say we owe 15 trillion, others, 16 trillion (by election time, it'll easily be that or more), and yet, thanks to the Great Recession, our GDP (all the stuff we make) is lower today than in 2009 (13.94 trillion dollars in stuff we made and sold in that year).

Even if we go with the figures that are the most recent published by one government agency (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm), we owed (in 2010) 13.57 trillion dollars (and we all know that's pathetically low and inaccurate by at least 2+ trillion as of 2012)...that equates to a debt that is 97.35% of all the dollars we collect, nationwide for everything we make.

By 2017 it's predicted, even with massive cuts in spending (which, by the way, will lower GDP), we'll owe (just on the "posted" national debt...doesn't include literally bastions of other debts we currently owe) nearly 130% of our GDP.

None of which includes unfunded mandates such as medicare, social security, federal pensions and the list goes on.

So, McBride, I appreciate your reference to Reagan...excellent choice to make a very rational point...he was the very first president that more than quadrupled the national debt in one presidency, the ONLY president that had in two terms, added more debt in those few 8 years than in all of the entire 212 years preceding his presidency and combined, more than every president before him, cumulatively.

And while it took us over 204 years to get to a debt of 900 billion (100 billion shy of 1 trillion), it took only 8 years more to quadruple that number....and in the 24 years since that incredibly historic event occurred....we've quadrupled it once again, making no effort in any of those 24 to get it under control (and for those who believe....foolishly....that Clinton ran a surplus...look at the charts again. Debt rose in every year we had a "surplus"....just slower than under other presidents).

The way to stop all of this is for everyone to agree to send back the next keg that gets brought in and tell these pricks...."no thank you, I don't need any more beer....I'm going home now to take care of my responsibilities....you (Congressman/President) need to go do exactly the same".

It ain't their fault....we let them do this...we all wanted just "one more keg".

Party's over...and anyone that thinks it can continue as before is simply delusional.





LookieNoNookie -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 7:51:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

The problem isn't that ours "couldn't work" or "wouldn't lower costs" it's that the legal system is designed to insure that it can't possibly work.

In states where they've limited liability for doctors (I believe Texas is one, I may be wrong) to some rational number (I seem to recall a "cap" of $100,000.00 as opposed to the multiple unending millions), health care is more 'affordable"...still not cheap but better than in states where these caps don't exist.

Most of the countries where the costs are significantly lower than our own, are also countries where these types of highly rational changes have been successfully implemented.


Lookie, I can't bring myself to believe that the legendary American zeal for innovation and problem-solving has grown so timid that it can't even try to fix this problem.

There's plenty of evidence that the legal hurdles are a negligible part of the problem, but even if that weren't so, I'd be shocked if Americans gave up on saving those lives because of one small aspect of the problem.



Well, that one "small aspect" is at the moment, roughly 16 trillion.

We don't have it.

But I too believe we can solve this.

(If we really want to.)




mcbride -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 8:22:45 PM)

Wow. Lookie, there's not a word of all that, in both posts, that I don't agree with wholeheartedly. Ronnie was certainly the debt creation king. And it cheers me up to hear that from a Republican, along with the thought that you believe we can solve this.

Now I just have to remind you of the breathtaking gap between health spending in the US, and elsewhere. I don't underestimate the resistance that the for-profit health care industry will put up: just because you tap the vampire on the shoulder and say "get off that girl", don't expect "oh, right, sorry, mate."

But the 16 trillion in debt is a really good reason to insist on a single payer system, and, in the bargain, you save lives and greatly improve the finances of American households.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 8:38:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

Wow. Lookie, there's not a word of all that, in both posts, that I don't agree with wholeheartedly. Ronnie was certainly the debt creation king. And it cheers me up to hear that from a Republican, along with the thought that you believe we can solve this.

Now I just have to remind you of the breathtaking gap between health spending in the US, and elsewhere. I don't underestimate the resistance that the for-profit health care industry will put up: just because you tap the vampire on the shoulder and say "get off that girl", don't expect "oh, right, sorry, mate."

But the 16 trillion in debt is a really good reason to insist on a single payer system, and, in the bargain, you save lives and greatly improve the finances of American households.


Well, as I've said in several other posts...I'm not smart enough to figure all that shit out, but let's hope you're right.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 8:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
There seems to be a small problem with the numbers there because as of the figures available in 2009, that means that more people a year LIVE as a result of not having health insurance.
Is the system in need of repair? Certainly. Hype and fear-mongering are not going to help. Neither will Obamacare, which, as Forbes has already pointed out, will eventually make health care costs even more unaffordable and cause more people who are insured under it to suffer or die needlessly.
-SD-


I get what you are saying, I think, but I do have to point something out. The people aren't living as a result of not having insurance. There is not causative link there, just a coincidental relationship.

Makes one wonder how many people died even though they had insurance and were getting care...




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 8:46:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"I give a shit too...we just don't have the money."


No prob drop`n a trill on Iraq tho..........[sm=m23.gif]


I'll never argue that our politicians aren't some of the most blunder headed trilobites ever to enter the genetic pool, nor will I ever argue that they make consistently and stupendously wise financial decisions but, your statement only proves my point:

We didn't have that money either.

Hence the increase in the national debt.

As the old saying goes, two wrongs....etc....

If anyone truly wants this stuff to actually happen (being able to pay for, or rather, I should have said...afford...the things many here ascribe to), do these things (or something even better):

1) Quit voting back in the dweebs that refuse to insist on spending less than 95% of revenues....however it gets done, spend less than we take in. It's simple math. You do it....and if you don't you end up in court or with a bankruptcy attorney. If we all insist, instead of being sheep...it will get done....but, we have to as a group also insist that maybe that new bridge in our town doesn't really need to be built....that we can (quite easily) drive an extra 5 miles to the already existing, fully underutilized library....that 4 stop signs at a rural intersection will work just as well as a 1.7 million dollar series of lights, computers, etc. just because we can.....

Something has to give....and everyone has to give something.

2) Run for Congress and get in there and change what you despise....quit talking about it and actually make a difference.

3) Create a website even, for anyone to respond to, add something to, such that people who actually know all the dirty shit that's going on can offer advice (regards hospitals/health care/the government/road building/wherever) and let everyone on the planet offer suggestions to cut waste so we CAN get out of debt so we're not borrowing tomorrow's income to pay for today's needs (which is indeed, exactly what we do).

There's a ton of brilliant people out there, from genius types to the man on the street....everyone's got an opinion and with enough of them we could probably make a dent in all this.

But we don't. We all sit here and bitch about why you shouldn't have what you want or they should be treated better than so and so, we all argue about why one poster is a dumb ass with no cranial capacity whatsoever, take offense at someone's comments where no offense was meant or given.....instead of....

Doing something about it.

Whether anyone, or for that matter, everyone, believes (truly, in their heart, down to their toes...BURSTING out of their fingers and every hair follicle) that we can afford 'it" (whatever "it" is), there's simply no denying it...we can't afford "it".

The national debt which is now in EXCESS of what we produce annually proves the point with clarity that is without capability of being denied.

Not our profit, which at best would be 5 - 7% of that (meaning it would take 15 - 20 years to pay off the national debt if EVERY corporation in America, and every private citizen took EVERY penny out of their pocket that wasn't allocated for a mortgage payment, car payment, food, new plants and equipment AND....during that ENTIRE twenty years, the federal government spent NO MORE than EXACTLY what they took in in revenues). and sent it to Washington DC for TWENTY years.....

Folks, whether you agree or not, the facts don't lie....our national credit card is BEYOND maxed out and until it isn't....there simply isn't enough money for everything that everyone wants....and I would wholeheartedly agree that one of the things we SHOULD have is health care for everyone....but until it can be paid for, and the evidence (again) that we can't afford everything everyone wants is on our national credit card statement....we simply don't have enough money for everyone's desires.

We don't have enough money to pay for everything everyone believes is essential.

Change the things that are wrong or accept that some things in life are going to appear wrong to a majority of those who are (and some who are not) paying the bill for same.

That's as simple as it gets. Really.




Pardon me if it`s already been said but proper health care SAVES money though prevention and catching disease early when it`s EASIER and CHEAPER to treat....

The law ALREADY SAYS we must care for sick folks.....people who come to the ER can`t be turned away, by law.

It`s several times cheaper to treat the sick BEFORE they get to the ER.And the ER is no replacement for providing healthcare services.It`s meant for emergencies .


The only reason cons are against universal health care .........is over some silly "principle".....that they think it`s socialism......

So they`ll pay through the nose to privateers for decades and get dropped as soon as they get sick,pay more and get less just so they can say we don`t have socialized medicine.

Misery accomplished.




I'll never disagree with that argument Owner....hence why I pay 100% of all of my employees health care coverage.

I want them to see a doctor when they're sick.

Not when they're dying.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 8:53:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
tweakabelle, there is no proof that the US would realize the cost reductions that others currently have over ours. We got into this a while ago, and just because that is the way it is in one part, doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be in these here parts. I'm not saying it wouldn't end up reducing our costs by 50%, but I can't see how you can make that claim.

Now there's a fun argument: Other countries do it, and their costs are dramatically lower than ours, and they get better measurable health outcomes, but we mustn't try it or work toward it because there's no proof our saving would match theirs.
Luckily there's nothing at stake. Well...beyond tens of thousands of American men, women and children dying.
Seems kinda wacky, Des.


You don't see it at all, then, mcbride. I'm not saying it won't work, but I'm not going to go around and trumpet that it will work, either. And, that was pretty much exactly what I said in my response.

Just because other countries have single payer or universal health care doesn't mean that we have the same cost savings if we put the same scheme in place. Did the other countries start where we currently are? If not, then their results very well may not be what we realize.

How many countries give citizens' their rights, instead of government getting its authorities from the citizens? Or, do you support changing that, too?




tazzygirl -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 9:21:08 PM)

quote:

I already admitted the 26000 was wrong, and that 35000 were still in need. I guess you don't bother to read my posts before your knee jerk response.


My response was not knee jerk... nor was my responses to you condescending. My whole point is that both states and charities have long waiting lists to help those who cant afford to help themselves.

Health care isnt about profits... it isnt about statues and paintings... it isnt abouit stock options... its about humanity... its about saving lives.

When did everyone forget that?




tazzygirl -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 9:24:14 PM)

quote:

I hope that's true....it would certainly improve a lot of lives.


I explained how in post #70




tazzygirl -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 9:27:03 PM)

quote:

I'll never disagree with that argument Owner....hence why I pay 100% of all of my employees health care coverage.

I want them to see a doctor when they're sick.

Not when they're dying.


I would rather they have the ability to see their Doctor on a routine basis so that any illness is caught early and at the curable stage instead of having to deal with prolonged treatments.




mcbride -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 10:55:11 PM)

Aw, I can only see what you actually write. Among other things, I read your post about others "attempting to rationalize the big pile of stinking shit you are calling evidence to back your claims... You have yet to show me where lack of health care caused the death," which certainly helps me understand your position on this.

I don't think we'll need your trumpet; just an acknowledgment, perhaps, that probably it would save American lives and save Americans a lot of money. No one, not one country on the planet, spends as much per capita on health care, so the chance that giving it a try would actually increase costs is pretty remote, to say the least. On the other hand, if you only manage some cost reduction, something under 50%....is that somehow worse than the status quo?

You wrote to tweakabelle "just because that is the way it is in one part, doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be in these here parts." Here's the thing: it isn't one part, it's 36, and in terms of spending , it's 212.

You're right: those other countries did not have such high costs, because they moved to national care sooner. I would suggest though, that that's no reason to dismiss the lessons learned in 36 countries, especially when there are lives on the line.

The question is which is riskier to Americans: sitting on your hands and staying with the status quo, or designing a American national system based broadly on any number of the 36 countries that spend far less, and get better measurable outcomes.

Here's the other important question about risk: Among those 36 countries who get better health care outcomes, has anyone -- anyone -- failed and gone back to a strictly private, for-profit system?

Doesn't seem so risky, again, compared to the current system.

quote:


How many countries give citizens' their rights, instead of government getting its authorities from the citizens? Or, do you support changing that, too?


Forgive me. I don't understand what you mean here.




tweakabelle -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/27/2012 10:57:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

I give a shit too...we just don't have the money.


This is fallacious. In comparable countries that run national health schemes, the cost to the economy is typically half the amount that the US spends on health care (which, incidentally, produces a lot less health care too -for instance look at the infant mortality rates).

So by abandoning the antiquated system the US currently has, Americans could save up to 50c in the $ on healthcare overall, and produce better health outcomes for all US citizens.

It is such a no-brainer that the continuing debate over healthcare is regarded with astonishment by many of us who enjoy national health schemes.


I hope that's true....it would certainly improve a lot of lives.

"Health care can form a significant part of a country's economy. In 2008, the health care industry consumed an average of 9.0 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) across the most developed OECD countries.[2] The United States (16.0%), France (11.2%), and Switzerland (10.7%) were the top three spenders."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

All it would take is for the US to match the average performance across the OECD to reduce your overall healthcare costs by almost half and provide universal coverage, with vastly improved health outcomes for individuals at the same time. The $ are already there in the system, eaten up by senseless duplication, overpayments to doctors, private company profits unnecessary advertising marketing and sales costs, ........ etc

Perhaps now you can understand why (and forgive) some of us non-Americans who enjoy universal health care systems look upon the American debate shaking our heads with sheer astonishment. Just imagine how that c7% of your GDP available for potential savings could ease the stresses on your National Debt the various State and Fed. Budgets and the overall economy.

It really is a no-brainer.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/28/2012 4:45:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Perhaps now you can understand why (and forgive) some of us non-Americans who enjoy universal health care systems look upon the American debate shaking our heads with sheer astonishment. Just imagine how that c7% of your GDP available for potential savings could ease the stresses on your National Debt the various State and Fed. Budgets and the overall economy.
It really is a no-brainer.


And, as a non-American, you may not know that the potential 7%GDP savings won't end up easing the stresses on our National Debt because, as is astonishingly bipartisan, any extra revenues find a place to to be spent. There isn't any spending reduction. That's what really irks many of us on the right side of the aisle. And, to be honest and fair, Clinton was the only President in my lifetime to reduce spending (and part of that was the Republican led Legislative Branch), and I believe he did that not only as a %GDP, but also in terms of real dollars.

And, also because you're not an American, you don't realize what our view of our Government is, from our experiences. If they were to control our health care, they would have the authority to control anything that would impact our health care usage. It is entirely possible that the Australian Government has that authority, too, but if that is given to our Federal Government, they'll use it. Mayor Bloomberg is an example of what one nut can do at a City level. Imagine that same nut going on about it at a National level. And, of course, it will all be done under the auspices of "protecting our health" or "cost containment." Once that power is granted, it becomes nearly impossible to repeal. Once we tell our Government to take care of our health, it will do so, but it will expand to the greatest size possible, pushing the boundaries and flowing over it's granted authorities.

Maybe that's where your Government stands apart from mine. Maybe your Government doesn't constantly look to expand and enter every aspect of your life. Maybe it does and Australians are fine with it. There are a great many in the US, however, that are not fine with that. There are a great many of us that believe if we make a mistake, we need to realize the consequence of that mistake to learn our lesson. That's why many of us were against every bailout (started under Bush, which doesn't make it any more right or any less wrong), push back against entitlements, and rail at abuses of power (ie. the Patriot Act [pushed and passed by Bush]). Constitutional limitations are held as safeguards to personal freedom and liberty. Misinterpretations of Constitutional limitations are resisted as much as possible. The US Constitution was meant to chain down the animal of government, not to loosely bungee it down.

So, shake your head at people like me. I have no problem with that. But, if your Government isn't like mine, and if the Aussie lifestyle isn't like the US lifestyle, don't even try to paint your situation as being the same as mine and that what you enjoy will be the same here.




Moonhead -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/28/2012 5:01:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, also because you're not an American, you don't realize what our view of our Government is, from our experiences. If they were to control our health care, they would have the authority to control anything that would impact our health care usage. It is entirely possible that the Australian Government has that authority, too, but if that is given to our Federal Government, they'll use it. Mayor Bloomberg is an example of what one nut can do at a City level. Imagine that same nut going on about it at a National level. And, of course, it will all be done under the auspices of "protecting our health" or "cost containment." Once that power is granted, it becomes nearly impossible to repeal. Once we tell our Government to take care of our health, it will do so, but it will expand to the greatest size possible, pushing the boundaries and flowing over it's granted authorities.

So the second amendment is going to prove useless as far as providing a check on the government goes, then?




Lucylastic -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/28/2012 5:09:10 AM)

of course all the insurance companies have zero control over any health care, and are NOT making it worse for people who cant afford to pay.
Like Wall street and Big Corps and koch brothers buying elections.. Or companies like JP Morgan trading losses look closer to 9 billion rather than the two Dimon claimed...
But they are just being True americans and good for the "citizens "general welfare"
YAY capitalism
And people [8|] wonder why things are a mess.
[:'(][:'(][:'(]
Dead poor people leaves more for everyone else.




Moonhead -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/28/2012 5:21:57 AM)

All true, but I thought the main reason given for no gun control these days was that it stops the government getting uppity. If DS feels it won't be adequate to do that, what's the point of it?




Lucylastic -> RE: Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance (6/28/2012 5:25:44 AM)

[sm=zipmouth.gif]




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625