Why does everyone hate "socialist" healthcare here?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI There's definitely some good information on the AMA report. It's worth noting, though, that the single metric that Breitbart pointed out on his site is one of many that the AMA uses to grade the various insurers. Not surprisingly, he excluded Metric 5 (Contracted Payment Rate Adherence) and Metric 10 (Percentage of Claim Lines Reduced to $0 By Edits), both of which Medicare scored significantly better than the private insurers. Many of the other metrics were fairly comparable amongst the insurers. I've not argued that Medicare claims processing is or will be superior to the private sector - there are a lot of variables at work here. But the private sector will and should always do whatever they can to benefit their shareholders because that's their primary mission. And I'd prefer that important health care decisions be made in accordance with well-established guidelines rather than driven by the profit motive inherent in all private companies. The metrics you described also don't tell the whole story, if you read the report itself the "Denials" from that chart or for reasons "other than a claim edit [sig] where the payment equals $0". So that means while Medicaid performs equal to or relatively well to other insurance providers , it seems they deny claims outright more than anyone else based on that metric. In my experience (administering for my now deceased relatives) my experience was the same. So again, the fundamental issue is we need reform. We need to fix what's broken in the system, but all data (not just the denials chart, but $80B a year in fraud, etc) show that the government option is the worst option.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[vraa]

Originally Posted by LRM1

So again, the fundamental issue is we need reform. We need to fix what's broken in the system, but all data (not just the denials chart, but $80B a year in fraud, etc) show that the government option is the worst option.

The broken system is broken because the inputs are too fat
Americans need more discipline in controlling their weight and more specifically their health
This is just more responsibility being put into the hands of a collective, and therefore idiotic, government system
Garbage in garbage out

[Kaz]

Things are getting so desperate, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad


http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/..._socialis.html


"Some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.

So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area."

[Kaz]

No crisis in veterianary care! Why? No gov't program


John Stossel made this same point comparing veterinary care to human care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

Why is it that whenever anyone *****es about "profit motive" they focus on it potentially driving shoddy product rather than the opposite tendency to provide superior product as driven by the existence of "consumer choice"?

The superior product driven by "consumer choice" has resulted in U.S. healthcare as the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy, accounting for 16% of our GDP (and rising), and mediocre health care outcomes. Nobody, except the insurance companies, should like the idea that such a huge sum of our economy goes to fund insurers' overhead and profit, particularly when lives are at stake.

Originally Posted by MG

This of course is a rhetorical question because I know the answer. Leftists fall into one of two groups

1) the anti corporatist who ignore all facts because they simply hate uncontrolled corporations (these are the Religious Fanatics, the jihadists if you will, of the left who beleive that the existence of choice is simply wrong)
2) the insular elitists who beleive that 98% of "the unwashed masses" are simply not capable of taking care of themselves (thus obviating the existence of informed choice) and should be taken care of......by the government, lol, you didn't expect the elitist to actually do it themselves did you?

I guess it's simpler for you to categorize and demonize those you disagree with. Not that you've asked, but I've spent my career in private-sector finance and have done fairly well. I don't "hate" uncontrolled corporations; I absolutely realize the value of private enterprise. The pendulum of regulation swings back and forth out of necessity, though, and reasonable people should be able to see the importance and value of this. But I guess MBW OT isn't really a haven for reasonable people.

I also think that people need to take a lot more responsibility for their personal choices. The biggest reason U.S. healthcare is so expensive? Because Americans are fat and unhealthy. Lots of contributing variables here (corn subsidies, urban sprawl, etc.), but ultimately the decision is made by the individual. BTW, this isn't a right or left issue - have you seen Rush Limbaugh lately?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

The superior product driven by "consumer choice" has resulted in U.S. healthcare as the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy, accounting for 16% of our GDP (and rising), and mediocre health care outcomes. Nobody, except the insurance companies, should like the idea that such a huge sum of our economy goes to fund insurers' overhead and profit, particularly when lives are at stake.

Steve, here's the thing. I haven't seen anyone here claim that there is no need for reform. Quite the contrary, everyone pushes the fact that there needs to be reform. I question the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy stat - especially today knowing how over extended Americans are, but even if that were true, all of that is based on COST - if COST weren't the issue, then insurance companies would reject people. Think about it. As a side example, the average cost of malpractice insurance in Florida $200K. In Minnesota? $20K Florida is unregulated, Minn. is. So there is no denying that there needs to be some form of regulation, but then lets fix that, lets fight to lower costs, the current plans merely shift cost from one place to another.

As for mediocre outcomes I don't know how you can say that. If you're basing it on life expectancy we have high murder rates, accident rates, etc.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I also think that people need to take a lot more responsibility for their personal choices. The biggest reason U.S. healthcare is so expensive? Because Americans are fat and unhealthy. Lots of contributing variables here (corn subsidies, urban sprawl, etc.), but ultimately the decision is made by the individual. BTW, this isn't a right or left issue - have you seen Rush Limbaugh lately?

Yes, people do, but the government shouldn't be the one making that decision for us. People also need to have responsibility in their own actions. But the left, coddles an attitude of entitlement. When people do something stupid, the left runs in defense and claims the stupid person is a "victim" of someone else. The systems in place designed to protect those who truly should be protected are overwhelmed by groups like the ACLU who see violations in anything and everything and call it "against their civil rights". Ironic if you think that now the government wants to take away our RIGHT to decide how we handle our healthcare costs, and the ACLU is nowhere to be found. They must be busy making sure that Abu Habib get's a Flacon Jet out of Gitmo and $100M in tax payer funds for his "mistreatment" at Gitmo.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

The superior product driven by "consumer choice" has resulted in U.S. healthcare as the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy, accounting for 16% of our GDP (and rising), and mediocre health care outcomes. Nobody, except the insurance companies, should like the idea that such a huge sum of our economy goes to fund insurers' overhead and profit, particularly when lives are at stake.

These stats are so convuluted and conflated that they are approaching the status of meaningless.

Lets assume your 16% of GDP is correct.

2008 US GDP 14 Trillion.

14T *0.16 = 2.24 Trillion with Medicare and Medicaid representing about 386 Billion of that, or 17%, This figure does not take into account Government employee plans. Over all Government pays out 29% of all health claims, private insurance 59%.

but, health care in itself is not overly burdened in this counrtry, in fact, it is considered to be underutlized (relative to the world) by most users.

Health care spending in the United States is concentrated. An analysis of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey found that the 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending. These patterns were stable through the 1970s and 1980s, and some data suggest that they may have been typical of the mid-to-early 20th century as well.[40][41] One study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found significant persistence in the level of health care spending from year to year. Of the 1% of the population with the highest health care spending in 2002, 24.3% maintained their ranking in the top 1% in 2003. Of the 5% with the highest spending in 2002, 34% maintained that ranking in 2003. Individuals over age 45 were disproportionately represented among those who were in the top decile of spending for both years

There is a principle in business called "Intermediating the Decision Maker and the Bill Payer". Think about the concept of Renting a car for a business trip. Enterprise is right over there, and its $32 a day cheaper, but Hertz has the magic carpet under the awning and that cool board with my name on it telling me where my car is. Its just so much more convenient.

I don't pay the bill, so why am I worried over $32?

Health Insurance is very much like this. Government sponsored plans (29% of the total claims) make up more than 60% of the total payouts (more than 70% in some studies) because none of the beneficiaries of those government plans actually care, because, they are not paying the bill. People on Private insurance do pay part of the bill, and this helps to keep overall spending down.

The answer? Clearly the answer to reducing the % of GDP represented by healthcare claims is not handing more of the insurance responsibilities over to the government.

I guess it's simpler for you to categorize and demonize those you disagree with.

I categorize everyone and everything, it is how I deal with reality. There is no demonization, just the harsh unvarnished truth. If you don't like it, I am sorry, but that's the reality of reality for you.

Not that you've asked, but I've spent my career in private-sector finance and have done fairly well. I don't "hate" uncontrolled corporations; I absolutely realize the value of private enterprise.

That makes you an elitist rather than a Religious fundamentalist then.

The pendulum of regulation swings back and forth out of necessity, though, and reasonable people should be able to see the importance and value of this. But I guess MBW OT isn't really a haven for reasonable people.

There is very little value in 98% of all regulations, except as an instrument for garnering more power unto itself. Government exists to perpetuate itself and gather as much power as its people will allow it to. That is the nature of all governments, through out time, without exception. Government should be regarded as an extremely dangerous tool, it should have a very limited mandate, it should have a very limited leash, and it should have a very limited tool set, all of which are extremely lethal.

I also think that people need to take a lot more responsibility for their personal choices.

I completely concur

The biggest reason U.S. healthcare is so expensive? Because Americans are fat and unhealthy.

I completely disagree. Reasons 1 and 2 below

1) Lawyers - direct cost of malpractice insurance
2) Government interference

BTW, this isn't a right or left issue - have you seen Rush Limbaugh lately?

To be honest, I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh looks like. I don't particularly care. Why is it that all lefties seem to think that people like me are brain dead robots who get all their information from Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly et al.

I watch/listen to none of their programs. If I see/hear them at all it is usually on a clip from a different show or print article.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by revstriker

LOL! So anything less than full socialized healthcare means that our healthcare is mediocre. Forget the fact that there is more care available to more people than just about any other country. Forget that people from other countries come here for healthcare. Forget that emergency rooms are open 25/7 to anyone in need.

So unless you're too dumb to understand, our health care is hardly mediocre.

"More care available"? What on earth do you mean by that?

And do you think that other countries' emergency rooms are open 9-5 with an hour for lunch?

[hkmb]

Reasons MG thinks US healthcare is expensive:

Originally Posted by MG

I completely disagree. Reasons 1 and 2 below

1) Lawyers - direct cost of malpractice insurance
2) Government interference

So.... the US has less government interference in its healthcare system than any other developed economy.

It has a more expensive healthcare system than any other developed economy.

Government interference is therefore the reason that it's expensive.

Right....

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Reasons MG thinks US healthcare is expensive:



So.... the US has less government interference in its healthcare system than any other developed economy.

It has a more expensive healthcare system than any other developed economy.

Government interference is therefore the reason that it's expensive.

Right....

2 more examples that purposely ignore the point being made by playing with the words in an effort to seem witty.

Yawn

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by LRM1

2 more examples that purposely ignore the point being made by playing with the words in an effort to seem witty.

Yawn

It's not playing with words. It's stating the obvious reason that MG is wrong on a fundamental point.

Dismissing every point where you and your allies are proven wrong as "playing with words" is as good as an admission that you're wrong.

[MG]

Originally Posted by hkmb

It's not playing with words. It's stating the obvious reason that MG is wrong on a fundamental point.

Dismissing every point where you and your allies are proven wrong as "playing with words" is as good as an admission that you're wrong.

Don't you have MRI machines per square mile ratios to kvetch about? Come back when you have an intelligent point to make.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by hkmb

It's not playing with words. It's stating the obvious reason that MG is wrong on a fundamental point.

Dismissing every point where you and your allies are proven wrong as "playing with words" is as good as an admission that you're wrong.

Hey MG!! When did we sign a treaty? Cool, We'll call it the "Council of Jersey of 2009". Nice ring to it.

Actually again, MG has already shown, repeatedly, has backup for his statement, yet your focus is on...... An obvious exaggeration.

So again, you make no point, defend no position, merely attack the blatantly obvious puffery to make a point and focus merely on that as an attempt to convince yourself (and failingly) others that you are in fact correct.

[MG]

how about

G uardians
U nited
I n
D efiance
O f
S inglepayer

Our Acronym should tell everyone we are Jersey base.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by MG

how about

G uardians
U nited
I n
D efiance
O f
S inglepayer

Our Acronym should tell everyone we are Jersey base.

That would be fine with me, but I'm liable to take heat for dissing my Hispanic "race" and pretending to be Italian.

[MG]

Originally Posted by LRM1

That would be fine with me, but I'm liable to take heat for dissing my Hispanic "race" and pretending to be Italian.

Well If you put the Burrito down you can claim to be Sicilian.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by MG

Well If you put the Burrito down you can claim to be Sicilian.

Rice and Beans, if I'm going to be proud, I gotta do it right

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

These stats are so convuluted and conflated that they are approaching the status of meaningless.

Lets assume your 16% of GDP is correct.

2008 US GDP 14 Trillion.

14T *0.16 = 2.24 Trillion with Medicare and Medicaid representing about 386 Billion of that, or 17%, This figure does not take into account Government employee plans. Over all Government pays out 29% of all health claims, private insurance 59%.

but, health care in itself is not overly burdened in this counrtry, in fact, it is considered to be underutlized (relative to the world) by most users.

Are you trying to make the point that we should be spending even more on healthcare, because the $$ are currently concentrated on a minority of (very) sick people?

Originally Posted by MG

I categorize everyone and everything, it is how I deal with reality. There is no demonization, just the harsh unvarnished truth. If you don't like it, I am sorry, but that's the reality of reality for you.

I'm no psychiatrist, and even if I were, it wouldn't be fair to psychoanalyze someone based on their web postings. But I see a pattern here showing your perception of the world as very black and white, where you're right and everyone else is wrong (like Rorschach in "Watchmen"). It makes honest and mature debate impossible when one side refuses to see any value in the opposition's argument. This is a similar problem we have in Congress and with the news pundits - too many grandstanding idiots who have completely forgotten what it means to be reasonable.

Originally Posted by MG

There is very little value in 98% of all regulations, except as an instrument for garnering more power unto itself. Government exists to perpetuate itself and gather as much power as its people will allow it to. That is the nature of all governments, through out time, without exception. Government should be regarded as an extremely dangerous tool, it should have a very limited mandate, it should have a very limited leash, and it should have a very limited tool set, all of which are extremely lethal.

More Unabomber-esque stuff.

Originally Posted by MG

I completely disagree. Reasons 1 and 2 below

1) Lawyers - direct cost of malpractice insurance
2) Government interference

Tort reform will help lower costs, no question. But government interference? In today's U.S.? Are you kidding me? Please post something other than anecdotal remarks that support this claim.

[C280 Sport]

Let me give my 2 cents about healthcare. My parents own a summer home in Florida. A Canadian CEO rented our place out for 6 months. He told us that when he left Canada to come to the USA he had to pay a large amount of money to the Canadian Gov. just for leaving the country for 6 months. On top of that he said the system they have up there is soo bad that if you need a heart or some sort of body part you can be waiting for months to get the treatment.

- You will most likly die in that case.
- This came from a man who lives in Canada and he hates that system.
And besides our Gov. couldnt even run the cash 4 clunker program with out messing that up. What makes people think they can run healthcare?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Tort reform will help lower costs, no question. But government interference? In today's U.S.? Are you kidding me? Please post something other than anecdotal remarks that support this claim.

Are you suggesting that government doesn't limit your choices of insurance companies based on your location?

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Are you trying to make the point that we should be spending even more on healthcare, because the $$ are currently concentrated on a minority of (very) sick people?

Its a fact, just a fact. There has been a ton of talk about how expensive our system is, but the vast majority of citizens are not repsonsible for incurring that expense, so I really don't see it as a relevant fact when we are talking about destroying a system that is servicing 85% of the population, on any given day, perfectly.

I'm no psychiatrist, and even if I were, it wouldn't be fair to psychoanalyze someone based on their web postings. But I see a pattern here showing your perception of the world as very black and white,

The world is black and white, do you know what a grey picture is? Black and white pixels.

where you're right and everyone else is wrong (like Rorschach in "Watchmen").

Incorrect, I can be convinced if the argument merits it. One of the reasons I enjoy debating so vigorously is because I want someone, anyone, to step up out of the childish antics of the standard leftyloo and put up some compelling argument. I challenge everyone to convince me they are right. In the meanwhile, I'll continue on with looking at the facts dispassionately and deciding what the right course of action is based on my own judgment.

too many grandstanding idiots who have completely forgotten what it means to be reasonable.

I'm not interested in "reasonable", I'm interested in what's right and never violating any single person's rights.

More Unabomber-esque stuff.

Actually that was a very close paraphrase of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. Interesting that you would rank Kosinski with them.

Tort reform will help lower costs, no question. But government interference? In today's U.S.? Are you kidding me? Please post something other than anecdotal remarks that support this claim.

Take a look at the Federal Employees Union plan benefits. Its available online. Additionally, why do you think we have zero health insurance portability?

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by C280 Sport

On top of that he said the system they have up there is soo bad that if you need a heart or some sort of body part you can be waiting for months to get the treatment.

- You will most likly die in that case.
- This came from a man who lives in Canada and he hates that system.

How do you define likely? In Canada, the death rate for organ transplant waiting lists was 4.91% in 2008. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/dow...ables_2008.pdf

In the U.S., the death rate was 5.21%. http://www.ustransplant.org/annual_r...ent/106_dh.htm

So, you can take the commentary of some guy renting your parents' house, or you can use real statistics to determine which healthcare system is more likely to kill you if you need an organ transplant. Of course, the survival rate has less to do with the healthcare system, and more to do with the actual availability of matching organs. But feel free to take the word of a single vacationing Canuck.

Originally Posted by C280 Sport

And besides our Gov. couldnt even run the cash 4 clunker program with out messing that up. What makes people think they can run healthcare?

How was CFC messed up? Were the car buyers unhappy with the rebate? The dealerships sold too many cars and got their inventory levels down too low? Or are you focusing on the simple fact that the program was wildly popular but had limited taxpayer resources behind it, and was therefore on a first-come, first-served basis?

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

Its a fact, just a fact. There has been a ton of talk about how expensive our system is, but the vast majority of citizens are not repsonsible for incurring that expense, so I really don't see it as a relevant fact when we are talking about destroying a system that is servicing 85% of the population, on any given day, perfectly.

Perfect > 85%. But that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by MG

The world is black and white, do you know what a grey picture is? Black and white pixels.

MG, do you have any work or educational experience that required a nuanced approach? (I'm trying to picture you in a college Lit class, with your black-white view to the world - not a pretty sight. )

Originally Posted by MG

I'm not interested in "reasonable"

That's it in a nutshell. And because a vocal minority shares this stance, things just grind to a halt.

Originally Posted by MG

I'm interested in what's right and never violating any single person's rights.

How do you feel about the current system, where the insureds are subsidizing the uninsured? The 46 million or so uninsured are getting some healthcare somehow, aren't they (usually in the form of ultra-expensive ER visits)? Aren't the providers' losses from uninsured passed on with higher rates, which get reflected in all of our premiums? I guess we still have the "right" to self-insure, so maybe that's good enough for you.

Originally Posted by MG

Actually that was a very close paraphrase of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. Interesting that you would rank Kosinski with them.

Welcome to the 21st century. We've been free of English rule for over 200 years. Your notion that our government can't and shouldn't do just about anything, and characterizing it as "dangerous" and "lethal" (in addition to the volumes of anti-gov't rhetoric you've posted here) puts you with the tin-foil hat crowd.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Perfect > 85%. But that's just my opinion.

Incorrect analysis, perfectly serving 85% is better than imperfectly serving 100% while perfectly enslaving 48%

MG, do you have any work or educational experience that required a nuanced approach? (I'm trying to picture you in a college Lit class, with your black-white view to the world - not a pretty sight. )

I do. 20 years worth. And I have learned that a nuanced analysis of a program is to have firm black and white standards for all of the details. But to your allieterative point, I once blew up a lit professor's 16 year old analysis of "The Heart of Darkness" based entirely on her misunderstanding of what a 6 inch gun is. Black and white, its important.

That's it in a nutshell. And because a vocal minority shares this stance, things just grind to a halt.

When the government overreaches, a halt is the best possible result

How do you feel about the current system, where the insureds are subsidizing the uninsured?

It depends on who the uninsured are. Reference my previous points on the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.........pixels.

The 46 million or so uninsured are getting some healthcare somehow, aren't they (usually in the form of ultra-expensive ER visits)? Aren't the providers' losses from uninsured passed on with higher rates, which get reflected in all of our premiums? I guess we still have the "right" to self-insure, so maybe that's good enough for you.

you assume that the 46 million uninsured are chronically uninsured. If you took a picture of a waterfall you could assume that all those water droplets are perennially suspended midair. You would be wrong in both instances. 3/10 of a % of this country are defined as chronically uninsured.

Welcome to the 21st century. We've been free of English rule for over 200 years. Your notion that our government can't and shouldn't do just about anything, and characterizing it as "dangerous" and "lethal" (in addition to the volumes of anti-gov't rhetoric you've posted here) puts you with the tin-foil hat crowd.

No, it puts me in the realist crowd. The lessons espoused by the founders of this country are as relevant now as at any time previously. But as a point of clarification, refer to previous posts where I termed "lethal" as Militaristic as well as market regulation. The feds should have "one bullet" in their market regulation gun, the one they used against Standard and ATT. nothing else.

[Kaz]

PRI does an explanation of what passes for logic found on NPR, its short and simple (it would have to be)


http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/b...xplains-it-all






NPR Explains It All

By: Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D
9.30.2009

National Public Radio yesterday, in collaboration with Kaiser Health News, proceeded to explain to the unwashed the nature of the "underinsurance" problem. And what an explanation it is. The underinsured "have health benefits that don't adequately cover their medical expenses." Such coverage often is characterized by "high deductibles and co-payments, as well as exemptions for specific conditions or expensive treaments, or limit[s on] annual and lifetime benefits."

So there we have it. "Underinsurance" means an allocation of risk between the insured and the pool (the insurer) that is not gold-plated from the viewpoint of the former. And the rather obvious increase in premiums needed to reduce the "underinsurance" problem? That discussion seems to have been left on the NPR/Kaiser cutting room floor, as the affordability of coverage clearly is a side issue not to be mentioned in polite society. The comedy highlight of the discussion is the assertion that "The increase in the underinsured is partly due to the fact that as health care and insurance costs have gone up, employers have bought policies with higher deductibles and co-payments and asking their workers to pay a greater share of the premiums."

That is not a misquote. The underinsurance problem, you see, would diminish if only benefits were greater, deductibles and co-payments smaller, and health-care and insurance costs even higher than now is the case.

You just cannot make this stuff up.