Unconscionable Math (http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/)

Or "Why Health Insurance Needs to Be Reformed The Hell Out Of".

If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.

Hehe, they fail to realize just how common many of those ailments are. Look here the top 5% blah, blah, I would also like to see the percentage of those 5% that had insurance but, due to the cost or treatments, had their policy ripped up. Having a kid in a hospital costs 20k a pop nowadays, and that is no c sections and/or further complications, I heard it is common for women to have 2.1 of those nowadays. 35k is like blowing out a knee, getting surgery, Mri, and associated treatment. From the intial drawings of the health care plan, I see nothing in the way that will actually bring down the prices in health care, which will inversely bring down insurance premiums.

From all indicators I have seen, it will effectively make all Americans require health insurance, which will be good for health insurance companies. I feel it would be alot better just to scrap the health care system in place and go completely social. Other countries do in fact do that.

Bottom line, I really do not like what they are proposing so far, I feel it won't work, or if it does work, it will need a reform within 5 years. Also, it may work out like FFEL, where the private companies get fully subsidized, guaranteed profits, then, 30 years later a new law passes, designed to offer a self sustaining goverment program, but, through some wrangling with politics and lobbying, the program isn't used.

A lot of women are going back to using mid-wives or home births when there aren't likely to be complications. Back in the day, most women had their babies at home. In fact, of the 6 my Mom had, only 2 of us were born in hospitals. :) Right about the time they convinced women that formula was better than breast is about when women started going to hospitals more and more for having babies.

Child birth isn't even covered by insurance any more is it? Or you have to buy a special policy for it, I think.

Something like 20% of our premiums for health care are going to administrative costs so until they address that, I don't think we're likely to see any savings.

I think prevention would help hugely but it isn't the sort of prevention people are interested in doing: Quitting smoking, eating better, buckling seat belts, stuff like that. Everyone wants prevention in the form of a pill or a shot or something, they don't want to be inconvenienced at all, for a pay-off 10-20 years down the road.

A lot of women are going back to using mid-wives or home births when there aren't likely to be complications. The chance of breech birth is 4%.
The chance of placenta previa is 4%.
The chance of placenta abruptia is 2%.

That is a 10% chance of death to a mother using a midwife. edit: 100% death chance to the baby.

Not considering infection.
Not considering prolonged birth, and an anoxic event with the child.
Not considering any ASD or VSD complications, which midwives routinely miss.
Not considering low birth weight babies secondary to maternal lifestyle.
Not considering high birth weight babies secondary to maternal lifestyle.
Not considering that American women(even poor women) want everything done for their 23 week old extreme preemies. Those things cost 1 million dollars a month in NICU. Nationalized healthcare countries just let them die.
Not considering the lawyer tax on Ob Docs. Highest in the industry. And that cost is passed on to the consumer, insured, and taxpayer.

And, especially, the Mexican Stork Birds. I'm completely surprised, considering that you live near the border, that you don't know about them. Mexican Citizen women, who travel up to the states, deliver babies here, on the taxpayers' dime, then take their dual citizenship babies back down to Mexico. Hell, I'm way up here by Stockton, and we see them every single day. You are down by the border, and don't know about them? Half the babies born in SD hospitals, I bet, are Mexican, from Mexican mothers(take that back, they are not Mexican babies, they are American now).

You pay for all that. In your taxes, in your Medicare and MediCal, and MedicAid taxes. In your insurance, in the goods you buy from retailers which pay insurance to workers. In the cars you buy, the TVs you buy. Healthcare is all in there.

Back in the day, most women had their babies at home. My greatgrandmother had all of her babies at home. Two of them died.

In fact, of the 6 my Mom had, only 2 of us were born in hospitals. :) Beat the odds. Grats to your Mom.

Right about the time they convinced women that formula was better than breast is about when women started going to hospitals more and more for having babies. I don't know when that happened. Maybe I should have taken your Women Studies course, instead of Nursing.

Child birth isn't even covered by insurance any more is it? Or you have to buy a special policy for it, I think. Wrong. You have to buy a special policy to not have it covered. At a greatly reduced rate. Last time Tuda was honest on the subject, he stated that his policy did not cover births or maternity.

Something like 20% of our premiums for health care are going to administrative costs so until they address that, I don't think we're likely to see any savings. Imagine when the government runs it, when administration is 50%. Cool.
Now the offset will be the present 40% in the lawyer tax applied to healthcare, now. So it will probably be a wash.

You show me a single governmental agency which can run administration more efficiently than private enterprise. Um, the Post Office, perhaps?

I think prevention would help hugely but it isn't the sort of prevention people are interested in doing: Quitting smoking, eating better, buckling seat belts, stuff like that. Everyone wants prevention in the form of a pill or a shot or something, they don't want to be inconvenienced at all, for a pay-off 10-20 years down the road. You have to force people to do those things.

Unconscionable Math (http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/)

Or "Why Health Insurance Needs to Be Reformed The Hell Out Of".

Very good article, btw. Thank you.

Way over the heads of most Americans, though. Can't put those points on a bumper sticker on the Prius or Bug.

It isn't like they can't be taken to the hospital if there is a complication.

Right about the time they convinced women that formula was better than breast is about when women started going to hospitals more and more for having babies.
I don't know when that happened. Maybe I should have taken your Women Studies course, instead of Nursing.
Which part are you ignorant of? Breast-feeding or having babies in hospitals being relatively new?

Semi-related: I read a book about this, it was fascinating:
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever and controversially concluded that puerperal fever was frequently carried from patient to patient by physicians and nurses and suggesting that hand-washing, clean clothing, and avoidance of autopsies by those aiding birth would prevent the spread of puerperal fever.[15] Holmes stated that ". . . in my own family, I had rather that those I esteemed the most should be delivered unaided, in a stable, by the mangerside, than that they should receive the best help, in the fairest apartment, but exposed to the vapors of this pitiless disease."[16]

Holmes' conclusions were ridiculed by many contemporaries, including Charles Delucena Meigs, a well-known obstetrician, who stated "Doctors are gentlemen, and gentlemen's hands are clean."[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerperal_fever

Way over the heads of most Americans, though. Can't put those points on a bumper sticker on the Prius or Bug.HEALTH INSURANCE:
We'll Pay the Bill
Until You Get Ill

A lot of women are going back to using mid-wives or home births when there aren't likely to be complications.To be honest, I wonder how these people stay in business. Considering how often obstetricians get sued, I'd think midwives would get sued every five minutes.Right about the time they convinced women that formula was better than breast is about when women started going to hospitals more and more for having babies.Hospitals today will tell you to breast feed unless there's a special reason you shouldn't.Child birth isn't even covered by insurance any more is it? Or you have to buy a special policy for it, I think.It's generally covered, although some insurance companies offer policies that exclude it.

y policy doesn't cover maternity. It also doesn't cover Lipitor or Prozac. It's quite cheap, relatively speaking of course.I think prevention would help hugely but it isn't the sort of prevention people are interested in doing: Quitting smoking, eating better, buckling seat belts, stuff like that. Everyone wants prevention in the form of a pill or a shot or something, they don't want to be inconvenienced at all, for a pay-off 10-20 years down the road.Prevention won't help because it won't happen (unless you make it involuntary, or under threat of force by the State).

We should simply aim to get risk takers to pay the extra cost of their own recklessness, and the best way to do that is a sales tax on products (or duty, for imports) that cause the problem.

For example, 10% of all health care spending is now obesity-related (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/27/financial/f113314D32.DTL), yet we still don't tax the junk foods that cause obesity.

And then there are the Christians who seem determined to keep our health care spending out of control. Even the House Democrats are scrambling to make absolutely, positively sure that the government health plan never funds abortions (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/30/national/w185701D24.DTL) ("god" forbid!). Why pay $500 for an abortion when you can pay $10 million in medical care, special education, incarceration, and so on for unwanted/defective fetuses?

Let me coin the phrase, Dysgenics, as the name of the Christian game.

You show me a single governmental agency which can run administration more efficiently than private enterprise.You're missing the point.

Private businesses can NEVER be trusted to run health care on their own because their business interests are directly in conflict with the public interest.

The same is true for several other functions that must remain socialist (such as the military), but not generally true for other things that can remain capitalist (like manufacturing iPhones).

THAT is why the State must run health insurance, even though they may be less efficient at doing so.

It isn't like they can't be taken to the hospital if there is a complication. You have never been in a NICU, have you?
Have you ever met someone with a complicated childbirth?
They are retarded, because of anoxia during birth.
And probably have CP in addition.

You have NOT spent any time with people with CP, have you?
And most of those people were born in hospitals.
The ones you haven't met, because they died during childbirth, those were birthed at home.

It only takes 2 to 3 minutes for anoxic brain injury. What do you have at your house to get to the hospital in that time, a teleporter?


Which part are you ignorant of? Breast-feeding or having babies in hospitals being relatively new? Ignorant of what?
That women tired of being tied down to a breast to feed their children.
So that they could be independant, and make their husbands, or other women feed their children for them?

You are going to have to convince me with something other than faulty Feminist propaganda, that there ever was a general belief(in the medical community, or community at large) that formula was EVER better than breast milk for babies.

That NEVER happened.

Semi-related: I read a book about this, it was fascinating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerperal_fever Fascinating subject.

But, um, we wash our hands now. They didn't back then.
They were just learning about the existence of bacteria back then.
They didn't even wear gloves. Hadn't been invented yet.

You're missing the point.

Private businesses can NEVER be trusted to run health care on their own because their business interests are directly in conflict with the public interest.
They can be trusted to do a job with less overhead. They don't have the advantage of being able to tax people to make themselves profitable.

aking themselves less expensive, lower overhead, less paperwork if possible, less employees, is what I trust them to do, or try to do.

The same is true for several other functions that must remain socialist (such as the military), but not generally true for other things that can remain capitalist (like manufacturing iPhones).
Providing healthcare is a service.
Just like a chef making you a meal.
A lawyer suing someone on your behalf.
A Starbucks barista making you a non fat mocha.
An asian prostitute giving you a nice bareback blowjob.

No different.

And I certainly need a blowjob more than I need to see a doctor.
Why don't we nationalize that?


THAT is why the State must run health insurance, even though they may be less efficient at doing so.
Like I said, I have the need for a really good blowjob, than I need a doctor.
I actually need one every morning. More than a Diabetic needs Lantus.
Pay for it!

No, I am not missing the point.

If you don't want insurance companies canceling policies, make it against the law to do so. That is criminal anyway you look at it.

Group pricing structure is criminal too.

Pre-existing exclusion is criminal.

ake those things illegal, they should be. Hell of a lot easier to do, and less expensive, than having the DMV administrate healthcare.

The healthcare is going to take place. People getting the service is going to happen. Adding government bureaucracy overhead, will just make it more expensive. Is that what you want?

I thought you thought it was too expensive now, and you want to add 30% to the price of it?

They can be trusted to do a job with less overhead. They don't have the advantage of being able to tax people to make themselves profitable.

Providing healthcare is a service.
Just like a chef making you a meal.
A lawyer suing someone on your behalf.
A Starbucks barista making you a non fat mocha.
An asian prostitute giving you a nice bareback blowjob.

No different.Of course it's different.

In all those circumstances, the business interests of the service provider are in harmony with the consumer's interests.

Your interest in getting a blow job is having a good sexual experience. That's the same as the prostitute's interest, because he/she is providing a nonessential service with high competition and repetition and wants you back as a customer.

The same reasoning applies to the chef or barista.

A personal injury lawyer's interest is in getting the biggest possible judgment for you, because he makes a third of that judgment.

Health insurance is the opposite. The business interests of an insurance company are to make the most money possible, which directly conflict with one of the consumer's primary interests, to be covered when he needs it. Because they make the most money by denying the service as much as possible to those who need it.

Health care is also a basic need, not a luxury item.

Capitalism offers no solution for this dilemma. Insurers could never practically compete on a "we'll really cover you" basis because of the lack of transparency in the industry, the low level of competition, and the lack of thinking/planning ability of the customer base.

Socialism is the only answer that is proven to work. You admit as much when you suggest that we regulate the industry (can't say no to offers, can't rescind contracts, etc.). But regulating the industry to death in the hopes of making it quasi-socialist is never going to work properly, because the old white men making the money are going to find ways to get around it and screw over the consumer at every turn.

We MUST have government-run health care for all, free of private business interests. Yes, it would be less "efficient" on a balance sheet, but it would serve the public interests better.

Ironically we already have a working system for the people who cost the most (Medicare, for those age 65+), and all we need to do now is to extend that system to people who cost the least.

Hospitals today will tell you to breast feed unless there's a special reason you shouldn't.It's generally covered, although some insurance companies offer policies that exclude it.
Oh, I know breastfeeding is encouraged now, but back sometime in the 1950's or thereabouts it was strongly discouraged. Doctors were telling new mothers not to do it, women were told that breastfeeding was something only poor, uneducated, uncivilized people did and that science had perfected things and formula was better than breast. It was also around the 1950's that the majority of babies started being born in hospitals. At the turn of the century is was a teeny percentage.

Health care right now is a monopoly... do you really think that if the health insurance companies found a way to lower overhead they would pass those savings onto us? Or just line thier pockets?

Health insurance companies are not out for our best interest, they are out for the all mighty dollar in any and every way they can get it. And that involves giving us as little service as possible while charging us as much as we will pay.

Will a government system be better? Probably not. But governments are (supposed to be) accountable to thier people. They at least pretend to care what we think.

Oh, I know breastfeeding is encouraged now, but back sometime in the 1950's or thereabouts it was strongly discouraged. Doctors were telling new mothers not to do it, women were told that breastfeeding was something only poor, uneducated, uncivilized people did and that science had perfected things and formula was better than breast.

Prove it.

Just because you remember some hairy armpitted lesbian professor at your liberal arts college telling you that in your Women's Studies lower division course, does not, not, make it so.

You have said it twice now, you must believe it. Where does that belief come from?

Prove it.

Capitalism offers no solution for this dilemma.

/shrug

An HSA is a solution to all the problems you have presented.

There was something on Bill Moyer's about the arguments that health care companies are using to try to counteract the health care reform legislation. Anyway, straight from the companies memo's into the Republican mouths.
This was the show: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html
Here's the transcript: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript1.html

But lets go through the platitudes:

Q) Do you want a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor?

A) I currently have an insurance company there representing stockholders, overpaid executives and Wall Street. I think I'd rather have the government, at least they're somewhat accountable to me.

Q) Government is terrible in health care, long waits, blah, blah, blah.

A) Let me go ask how many Canadians, Koreans, Japanese, French, English, Dutch, Germans (and so on), how many of them would trade their health care for American style health care. *crickets chirping*

Now, while we're on the subject of how awful the government is on health care how about asking military veterans how many of them would like to turn over their health care system to private insurance. I think most of them really like their health care. And what about Medicare? There's no quicker way to get a cane jabbed in your kidney than suggest that the government should stop Medicare.

Both my parents were on Medicare and there was no waiting for the medical services they needed, no excessive paperwork. They were very happy with it.

I have talked to Canadians who have had critical medical issues and there is no wait. On less critical things, yes there may be. But I don't know about you but the waiting list is terrible here for certain procedures. I frequent a few celiacs message forums and it isn't unusual to hear of people waiting 6-8 months on their private insurance. And then, you might find yourself turned down by your insurance company or even worse, have your insurance yanked after the fact.

An HSA is a solution to all the problems you have presented.Since it's still insurance using the same old system, it solves none of the problems. And it creates quite a few of its own, such as, it's useless for anyone in lower tax brackets.

You're not going to win this one with capitalism. It has never worked and will never work (in this area).

Now, while we're on the subject of how awful the government is on health care how about asking military veterans how many of them would like to turn over their health care system to private insurance..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
That's right, Moyers wants the whole system to look like the best of government run healthcare. Like the VA hospital system. Like Walter Reed.

We all know what a shining example that is.

And how accountable the government is for this.

There is NO f'n way that a VA hospital could ever, ever pass a Joint Commission inspection. And you want this level of service for yourself and your grandmother?

Madigan hospital in Fort Lewis, Wa, when they installed the new facility was a pretty good hospital, it served all the branches of service and ended up taking the vets when they closed the VA center in Tacoma, once the new Madigan opened. It would often get civilian service as it was just as modern as a regular hospital. The insurance companies kept trying to send every civilian there for health care. But, they really only accepted trauma for civilians, minus militiary dependents. It does depend though. Often, the government will take quite a while to update facilities, you can see the same with schools as well.

We used to get really crap service at civilian hospitals when we used them. As in wait nine hours to get an x ray for a broken arm or leg kind of service, with no pain medication, then waiting another 5 hours to get a cast, with very limited amounts of patients in the area. We even had a few guys bleed out for something that was going to take a few stitches to clean up, because of the wait. Showing up 3 hours early for an appointment for acute issues, and getting served 6 hours later, while other patients get served at their scheduled times.

Health insurance is the opposite. The business interests of an insurance company are to make the most money possible, which directly conflict with one of the consumer's primary interests, to be covered when he needs it. Because they make the most money by denying the service as much as possible to those who need it.
If insurance companies only paid out 5-30% of the money they took in out to medical services, who in the world would buy insurance? The only reason why people by insurance is because they know others who were hit with $100K medical bills that had insurance cover it.

Yes, it's true that "medical losses" have decreased for insurance companies over the past 30 years, but it's no where near the levels you seem to think they are.

Health care is also a basic need, not a luxury item.

Capitalism offers no solution for this dilemma.
Very Soviet thinking. The Soviets abandoned a fully socialized economy a decade or two into the USSR; they said that people can handle the unimportant parts of the economy on their own, but the important stuff -the commanding heights- of an economy must be handled by the state.

And I don't see how you can call it a "need." Humans have survived for 10s of thousands of years without what we would call health care, as have millions of other species on earth. Food air and water are needs. All of the food we eat is provided by capitalism. Most of the water we drink is provided by capitalism. Air is provided by nature, not the state or capitalism, unless you need higher oxygen concentrations than the atmosphere contains (ie a oxygen tank), most of which are provided through capitalism.

Insurers could never practically compete on a "we'll really cover you" basis because of the lack of transparency in the industry, the low level of competition, and the lack of thinking/planning ability of the customer base.
Translation: People are too dumb, the state knows all.

Socialism is the only answer that is proven to work. You admit as much when you suggest that we regulate the industry (can't say no to offers, can't rescind contracts, etc.). But regulating the industry to death in the hopes of making it quasi-socialist is never going to work properly, because the old white men making the money are going to find ways to get around it and screw over the consumer at every turn.
Holland, Switzerland, Massachusetts, etc have all proven you can have capitalist universal health care.

We MUST have government-run health care for all, free of private business interests. Yes, it would be less "efficient" on a balance sheet, but it would serve the public interests better.
Socialist health care systems only work because they're able to buy drugs and medical equipment from capitalist health care nations (mainly the US and Switzerland.) They're only so cheap because we as Americans subsidize medicine for the rest of the world. If the US (the country responsible for the majority of medical innovations) is socialized, medical innovation will come to a stand still.

Because contrary to your socialist rhetoric, the profit motive is an undebatable net plus for every area of the health care system outside of insurance.

Ironically we already have a working system for the people who cost the most (Medicare, for those age 65+), and all we need to do now is to extend that system to people who cost the least.
Working system? Really? How bad at accounting are you? How do you consider the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world (the American medicare system) to be a working system?

Now, while we're on the subject of how awful the government is on health care how about asking military veterans how many of them would like to turn over their health care system to private insurance.
The problem is that there is no economic logic in your statement. Let me add some to it.What is the difference between government and a thief?

A thief doesn't ask you to thank him after he steals your money.
Lets say I open a store and run it like the government runs entitlements. When customers walk in, I would walk up and rob them, and give them nothing in return. Then a few months later I would run up to them on the sidewalk and give them some goods as a "free gift!" It will be no surprise that the person will like the free gift part of this equation, but the stealing part (taxes) is required to supply those 'free gifts.'

Veterans Affairs is an entitlement program that is more less taken out of soldier's salaries. We allow the military to take XX% of our government's budget, and XX% of that money is used to fund the VA system instead of other stuff (such as soliders' salaries.)

So the better question to ask soldiers would be would they rather have higher pay or VA benefits? If soldiers were allowed to opt out of the VA system and receive pay exactly equal to the amount of funding it would've taken to enroll them in the VA, it would be a moral system, but as it is, it isn't.

----

This leads me to a common liberal economic fallacy; the idea that is a government services is popular among the beneficiaries that it therefore must be a good government service. Let me counter that.

Lets say I have a kid. Now lets say that public school in my area costs $9,000 a year per student and private school costs $12,000 a year for student. Now lets say that I'd be willing to pay $16,000 a year to send my kid to private school, surely I would choose that option if it costs only $12,000, right?

Wrong.

Whether if I want to send my kids to public school or not, I'll have to pay to fund the public school. So the "real cost" of private school would be $21,000 a year, not $12,000 a year, since I'd have to pay for both public and private schools.

Since I only value private school at $16,000 a year, I'd still send my kid to public school since paying $21,000 for something I value at $16,000 wouldn't make sense. This by no ways means that I think public school is better -in this scenario I don't- but the taxation system makes it in my interest to take advantage of the services I involuntarily pay for, since I'll have to pay for unused services by opting out.

And I don't see how you can call it a "need." Humans have survived for 10s of thousands of years without what we would call health care, as have millions of other species on earth.Humans have died very horrible and painful deaths for tens of thousands of years too, and that is why we invented technology to prevent such things. So that we can live longer and more comfortably.

I'm sure that if you were in severe pain or dying, and there were a means to cure your condition, you would consider getting that treatment a top priority in your life. It may even rank higher than food, water, shelter, sex, and other very basic needs.

And on a purely practical level, an unhealthy population is far more likely to spread disease to the entire population, decimating the economic base of the nation.

That's why I say health care is a "need".All of the food we eat is provided by capitalism.Food is provided by socialism in the United States, through massive government subsidies to farmers.Holland, Switzerland, Massachusetts, etc have all proven you can have capitalist universal health care.You've made this mistake before.

Although the Netherlands and Switzerland have a program using mandatory private insurance, it is not capitalist. The government dictates insurance rates, sets the level of coverage required, and supplements with taxpayer dollars. They are socialist systems that simply offload the day-to-day administration of health care to private companies.

assachusetts isn't a country, and is subject to federal socialist health care laws such as EMTALA and Medicare, so it certainly isn't an example of a capitalist universal health care system.

The reason no country has capitalist health care is that capitalist health care cannot, and does not, work.Socialist health care systems only work because they're able to buy drugs and medical equipment from capitalist health care nations (mainly the US and Switzerland.) They're only so cheap because we as Americans subsidize medicine for the rest of the world. If the US (the country responsible for the majority of medical innovations) is socialized, medical innovation will come to a stand still.You are talking about three separate industries (health care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment). I am talking about socializing the first.Working system? Really? How bad at accounting are you? How do you consider the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world (the American medicare system) to be a working system?Well, every taxpayer pays 2.9% of his net profit into a big pool, which is then doled out to provide health care, at government-mandated (non-capitalist) rates, to people over 65.

It has worked successfully, providing coverage to seniors for over 40 years and almost everyone who is eligible signs up for it.

It is an excellent example of how we can provide socialized medicine, and since we can do it for the costliest patients (age 65+ with Medicare, and children with SCHIP), surely we can also do it for the cheapest.

You are talking about three separate industries (health care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment).

And you are fallaciously linking the paying for those services with those services.

They are distinct.

Even in a system such as the Kaiser system, they are disconnected.



Ultimately, and originally, the disconnect was suppose to become stronger under HIPAA. A law which was originally intended to prevent insurance companies from disincluding clients because of pre-existing conditions.

And what had been only a small addendum at the end of it, to protect the privacy of AIDS patients. Has become the entire focus of the law. And insurance companies still do what they were not suppose to do.

Which is what this thread is about. People who have their policies revoked because they lied on their applications. And having those conditions not covered because they existed before the policy was enacted.

That is criminal. And viewing the video attached, at least there are some Congressmembers who can see that.

to people over 65. What are you talking about?
edicare, Medicaid, and MediCal pays for anyone at any age. What's this 65 thing you are talking about?

What are you talking about 65?

That is not real.

Who do you think pays for all the premature babies born to drug abusing mothers at 24 weeks? Brand new humans, and they are on Medicare. One minute old, and MediCare pays for them.

ore than half of all my patients' services are paid by medicare, and only a percentage of those have been over 65 years old.

I have friends who are unemployed and uninsured(by private insurance), and are in their 20s and Medicare pays for them and their children.

Audio won't be available until around 7pm tonight but... Are Insurers' Profits Really That Low? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111494182&ft=1&f=1001) looks interesting

What are you talking about?
edicare, Medicaid, and MediCal pays for anyone at any age. What's this 65 thing you are talking about?

What are you talking about 65?You really need to educate yourself about the differences between Medicare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal. Just because they all begin with "Medi" doesn't mean they're all the same.

I am talking about Medicare, the massive federal socialized medical system enacted in 1965 to provide coverage for seniors. You have to be age 65 to enroll in Medicare, except in a couple of very limited situations where you have certain disabilities and are already receiving social security.

And I assure you, those eligibility requirements are real. Visit Medicare.gov if you don't believe me.

edicaid, which I am NOT talking about now, is a special program for low-income families who can't afford coverage. Medi-Cal is the name of the Medicaid program in California.

Got it now?

People who have their policies revoked because they lied on their applications. And having those conditions not covered because they existed before the policy was enacted.

That is criminal.You want the State to force, at gunpoint, a private party to fulfill its obligations under a contract when the other private party to the contract committed fraud and materially breached the contract.

You want the State to force, at gunpoint, a private party to accept an offer to contract, on terms you dictate, even when they don't want to.

Are you a libertarian or a totalitarian?

A capitalist, you're certainly not.

blah blah blah

Got it now?
None of that makes any difference. None.

All of the money comes from the Medicare coffers ultimately, anyway. Or most of it, a small portion of tax goes to state medicare.

What you are saying is akin to saying that you can not get any Social Security money until you are 65.

Which is also just as wrong.

I have friends collecting Social Security who are not 65. And plenty of customers.

If an 18 year old unemployed uninsured male presents to the ER, a large portion of the bill, never is the whole billed paid for, is going to be paid for by Medicare. How it is funneled out through other federal agencies, or states agencies, or county agencies makes no difference. Its all still MediCare.

Your details are completely liquid(and changes on a whim, see Medicare Part B, C, D), and completely unimportant. Money going into Medicare goes to patient care, meds, and medical equipment of any age, that is important.

I have treated a 20 year old alcoholic, in the US for less than a week, and treated in ICU for a GI bleed, and DTs. Fresh from Mexico, and treated with MediCare money. Not only not 65, but never paid a cent into the system.

You have to be age 65 to enroll in Medicare, except in a couple of very limited situations where you have certain disabilities and are already receiving social security.


What limiting certain disabilities are you talking about?

I have friends on SSI, and don't work because they can't hold a job and have no work ethic.

I have had obese patients on SSI because they were fat.

You make it sound like it is hard to get.

You could get it if you wanted to. Just tell them that the anxiety of the workplace gives you agoraphobia or panic attacks or IBS. That is not hard to do. I'm incredulous that you don't know this stuff, or know people like this.

You want the State to force, at gunpoint, a private party to fulfill its obligations under a contract when the other private party to the contract committed fraud and materially breached the contract.

You want the State to force, at gunpoint, a private party to accept an offer to contract, on terms you dictate, even when they don't want to.

Are you a libertarian or a totalitarian?

A capitalist, you're certainly not.

The insurance company is in violation of HIPAA to deny you coverage for your pre-existing conditions. Of course most individual customers sign the HIPAA waiving them of those rights when they get a new policy.

It is criminal.

Just as criminal it would be if they discriminated against Blacks because they have a higher risk(than any other group) of Sickle Cell, HTN, DM, and CAD(and all of the secondary conditions).

Yes, I want the state to enforce this law, in letter and spirit. Additionally, private corporations, should provide the same service, and same type of service to individual policyholders as it does to corporate group members/policyholders.

None of that makes any difference. None.

What you are saying is akin to saying that you can not get any Social Security money until you are 65.

Which is also just as wrong.No, I'm not talking about Social Security. I'm also not talking about Medicaid. I'm talking about Medicare, and ONLY Medicare, as a model for a universal health care system.

Yes, there are OTHER programs out there for OTHER people that you randomly mention, and I am NOT talking about those.

Are you clear on this now?If an 18 year old unemployed uninsured male presents to the ER, a large portion of the bill, never is the whole billed paid for, is going to be paid for by Medicare. How it is funneled out through other federal agencies, or states agencies, or county agencies makes no difference. Its all still MediCare.No, it isn't. Medicare and Medicaid have different funding sources and different eligibility requirements.

If you still don't get it, this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#Comparisons_with_Medicare) might help you understand the differences between the two.Money going into Medicare goes to patient care, meds, and medical equipment of any age,Wrong.I have treated a 20 year old alcoholic, in the US for less than a week, and treated in ICU for a GI bleed, and DTs. Fresh from Mexico, and treated with MediCare money.Wrong. He wouldn't qualify for Medicare not only based on his age, but on immigration status. Not to mention, Medicare is something you must specifically apply for when you're eligible.

Look at those records again and you'll see it wasn't Medicare. You're probably confusing the names of the social programs because they sound similar to you.

The insurance company is in violation of HIPAA to deny you coverage for your pre-existing conditions. Of course most individual customers sign the HIPAA waiving them of those rights when they get a new policy.And there are other exceptions that water down these protections.

But that's besides the point. HIPAA is socialism; totalitarianism really if you're considering criminal penalties.

It is NOT capitalist. If you like it, then I take it you're agreeing with me, that we need a socialist health care system.Just as criminal it would be if they discriminated against Blacks because they have a higher risk(than any other group) of Sickle Cell, HTN, DM, and CAD(and all of the secondary conditions).They do that too. They separate regions into zones based on demographics and adjust the price accordingly.Yes, I want the state to enforce this law, in letter and spirit. Additionally, private corporations, should provide the same service, and same type of service to individual policyholders as it does to corporate group members/policyholders.So you are a socialist.

Now that you've admitted it, you have to explain to me why you're defending the current broken, inefficient system where we have to constantly write laws for insurance companies that try to dance around the rules to maximize their profits. We should jettison them entirely and have a government-run system that avoids all of these issues.

Year to date I have paid.

898.96 dollars to MediCare.
7982.76 dollars for my own insurance.
I also paid 3843.83 into the Social Security pot, of course(with my employer matching that).

I paid ZERO to MediCal, or MedicAid.
Zilch.

Where do you think the money comes from and goes?

But that's besides the point. HIPAA is socialism; totalitarianism really if you're considering criminal penalties.
If laws regulating corporations, and corporate behavior, is totalitarianism, then we are already there.

It is NOT capitalist. If you like it, then I take it you're agreeing with me, that we need a socialist health care system.They do that too. They separate regions into zones based on demographics and adjust the price accordingly.So you are a socialist.
That is criminal.

Now that you've admitted it, you have to explain to me why you're defending the current broken, inefficient system where we have to constantly write laws for insurance companies that try to dance around the rules to maximize their profits. We should jettison them entirely and have a government-run system that avoids all of these issues.
I have admitted what I have admitted. Nothing more. Interpolation is not a statement or admission.

Corporations are accountable.
The government is not.

Insurance companies maximize profits by being productive, for competitive advantage, by cutting costs and running more efficiently.
There is NO motivation for any government entity to do that. Government entities are motivated to run as inefficiently as they possibly can.

Simple as that.

Would you send your grandmother to UCSF, or rather to a VA hospital?

Or we could do what Tinsi's Norway has done. Nationalize all the oil deposits(all natural resources really) and pay for our healthcare with that. Or as I have suggested, remove the Homeowners Mortgage deduction, and pay for it with that.

I paid ZERO to MediCal, or MedicAid.
Zilch.Really, you make so little that you paid NO federal or state income tax? I didn't realize nurses had it so bad. You should ask your boss for a raise.

As for the rest of us, who do pay income taxes, it goes into the state and federal general funds. The State pays into its Medicaid program, and the federal government matches from its own general fund, giving more money to the poorer states (you know, the ones in the South that whine about socialism).

The system is separate from the 2.9% Medicare tax we all pay on every dollar of profit we make. That goes into a special Medicare trust fund for financing the Medicare system for people age 65+.

Corporations are accountable.
The government is not.You can vote out democratic governments.

You can't vote out corporations, as a consumer.

You can only choose to not buy their goods/services, which sucks if that's a good/service that your life depends upon, and every company offers essentially the same thing, as with the insurance industry.

In some cases you can sue them if they do something really bad, and if you have a ton of time, money, and expertise to pursue a claim against very skilled opponents. But that's little comfort if you're sick and dying.

So you have it backwards: Corporations have virtually no accountability, whereas Government has at least some accountability.Insurance companies maximize profits by being productive, for competitive advantage, by cutting costs and running more efficiently.Exactly!

And the #1 way an insurance company maximizes profits is by denying YOU coverage when you need it. (The #2 way is by price gouging consumers who have no choice.)

What you fail to grasp is that while they run more efficiently for THEMSELVES, the old rich white men running the show, and the shareholders, they are a disaster for YOU, the consumer.

That is why a capitalist health care system can never work, because its primary motive (maximizing profits) is directly at odds with the public's primary interest (covering people who need health care).

Government may be less efficient, but it has no shareholders demanding a profit, it has no executives demanding $100+ million compensation, and it has every incentive to make the people happy, or the people will remove them in a few years. Government's interests are more in harmony with those of its people.Would you send your grandmother to UCSF, or rather to a VA hospital?UCSF gets 20% of its budget from various government sources. It could not survive in its present form on a purely capitalist basis.

I think what this country needs to grapple with is the issue of whether health care is a right, or should be. Right now, it's not a right at all. We're the last modern Western country that doesn't ensure that it's citizens have access to health care.

Sometimes I think America is striving to become a third world country.

I think what this country needs to grapple with is the issue of whether health care is a right, or should be. Right now, it's not a right at all. We're the last modern Western country that doesn't ensure that it's citizens have access to health care.I wish the liberal media -- and you, as their representative -- would stop lying, trying to paint these "XX million uninsured" as people who are dying in the streets because they're being denied health care.

We already grappled with this issue over 20 years ago, and the matter was settled when Reagan signed EMTALA into law.

Health care is a right, and has been a right, in the United States since that time. EMTALA applies to virtually every hospital in the United States, and the federal government will enforce that right at gunpoint if necessary.

I realize that it's easier to try to move people emotionally by lying about it, than to appeal to them intellectually by addressing the real issue.

But on this board, it won't get you very far.

So stop lying. Please.

EMTALA, which stands for Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, is not comprehensive health care of the sort under discussion. They're not going to leave accident victims bleeding on the side of the road. Horray! But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with cancer, diabetes or precancerous polyps in their colon. If they don't have health insurance, they're not getting cared for outside of emergency rooms in hospitals.

Have you, as an insured person, ever gone to an emergency room? Because all these uninsured people go there, we end up having to wait hours to get seen. If they could be seen in a doctor's office or non-emergency urgent care then we could actually use emergency rooms for their initial purpose again.

Health care as a right means being able to get non-emergency health care and ongoing treatment for conditions like diabetes, cancer, infectious disease vaccinations, and other things, not just emergencies.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with cancer, diabetes or precancerous polyps in their colon. If they don't have health insurance, they're not getting cared for outside of emergency rooms in hospitals.The point is, they're getting cared for.

The dilemma you posted -- "the issue of whether health care is a right, or should be" -- is a liberal fiction, not reality.

Health care is a right, and has been for decades.Have you, as an insured person, ever gone to an emergency room? Because all these uninsured people go there, we end up having to wait hours to get seen. If they could be seen in a doctor's office or non-emergency urgent care then we could actually use emergency rooms for their initial purpose again.You're preaching to the choir there.Health care as a right means being able to get non-emergency health care and ongoing treatment for conditions like diabetes, cancer, infectious disease vaccinations, and other things, not just emergencies.You can get treatment for anything if you're uninsured. You just have to go to an emergency room.

Right, and it makes a lot of sense to stuff people into emergency rooms for non-emergencies. And what... emergency room physicians are going to know about your chronic problem and treat it there? You're going to get chemo from an emergency room? Somehow I doubt that. And so productive too to have someone sit in a emergency room lobby for 8 hours instead of treating them and letting them go to work or take care of their families.

And further, you're absolutely full of **** on this. http://www.medlaw.com/handout.htm
The scope of medical screening exams (MSE) under EMTALA is to provide a medical exam of sufficient scope as to reasonably be intended to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists, and includes all necessary testing and on-call services within the capability of the hospital to reach a diagnosis that excludes the presence of legally defined EMC's. The term EMC will be defined below. Exams that are "complaint based" and fail to address affected and potentially affected systems and known chronic conditions have been held inadequate by CMS.


Florida law also requires the exam to include all necessary treatment and surgery.


Federal law basically requires all necessary definitive treatment to be rendered and that only true follow-up care (maintenance care) may be referred to physician offices or clinics.
You won't get follow up care.

Imagine if we ran fire departments like we do health care. Let's let the free market run that too.

*Brrrrng* *brrrrng*

"Hello LA Fire department where's the fire?"

"24th and Lancaster! Our 4 year old daughter is trapped on the 2nd floor! Please hurry!"

"Ok, let me just look up your policy. Oh... you don't have fire insurance. I'm sorry, we'll just have to let her burn. Next time, please get fire rescue insurance".

You won't get follow up care.Of course you will. You just have to go to the ER again.

If your point is that this system is fundamentally retarded, I agree completely.

But I was addressing your earlier point, where you suggested that we must first decide whether health care is a right. We've already decided that.Imagine if we ran fire departments like we do health care. Let's let the free market run that too.It's pretty funny how the so-called conservative free market types will readily accept and even insist on socialism in some areas, but stubbornly and violently oppose it in others, without even considering it.

It's like they are pre-programmed by the health care, insurance, and drug industry (and their paid spokespeople, the conservative media) to automatically reject systems that might lower the income of a very small group of old rich white men. Perhaps those Cialis ads have subliminal messages, or something along those lines.

Whatever the reason, they are almost as adept at doublethink as the politically correct types are.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/07/20090715b.htmlNew Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-Fifth of Emergency Room Visits

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released new data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample -- the largest, all-payer emergency department database in the United States. The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample is designed to help public health experts, policymakers, health care administrators, researchers, journalists and others find the data they need to answer questions about care that occurs in U.S. hospital emergency departments.

These data indicate that uninsured persons accounted for nearly one-fifth of the 120 million hospital-based emergency department visits in 2006.And that's data from 2006, when the economy was in full swing and the unemployment rate was half what it is now. Take a guess where all those newly unemployed people are going to go for their health care.

Still think the EMTALA health care plan isn't real?

And this is the "Republican" response to the health care crisis:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/06/MNTG194BU2.DTLRowdy protesters overrun health care meetings

(08-05) 20:25 PDT -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent her chamber home for the summer recess with a list of talking points to respond to constituents' questions about pending health care legislation.

But those traditionally sleepy town hall meetings have become rowdy shout-fests across the nation, including Northern California, with opponents hanging members in effigy and mocking them with Nazi and devil imagery in an effort to derail discussions of health care.

They're organized in part by conservative think tanks like FreedomWorks, which offers tips on how to disrupt a meeting ("Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early," says one) and helped in some cases by anti-tax "Tea Party" sympathizers.

ore than 500 people packed a Napa town hall hosted this week by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, some shouting down panelists by yelling "This is America!" and "What's wrong with profit?"

Three Aug. 15 East Bay town halls scheduled by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, one of the health care legislation co-authors, are the targets of one Tea Party group calling for a "counterprotest."

A spokesman for Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., said this week he wouldn't be holding any town halls after his office received a death threat from a caller who said Miller "could lose his life over this."I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, you can at least try to throw a temper tantrum to divert attention from those who do.

And the "Republicans" wonder why no one other than the extreme right-wing Christian nutjobs and racists are voting for them.

EMTALA, which stands for Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, is not comprehensive health care of the sort under discussion. They're not going to leave accident victims bleeding on the side of the road. Horray! But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with cancer, diabetes or precancerous polyps in their colon. If they don't have health insurance, they're not getting cared for outside of emergency rooms in hospitals. Wrong.
The wait is for med surg beds, or ICU beds. If you need to be treated you will be transferred to that department.
Emergency Departments work on a triage system. The most critical conditions are treated first.
What you remember ERs were for when you were a child, are just memories. People use ERs for every conceivable condition, sprains and splinters even.

Have you, as an insured person, ever gone to an emergency room? Because all these uninsured people go there, we end up having to wait hours to get seen. If they could be seen in a doctor's office or non-emergency urgent care then we could actually use emergency rooms for their initial purpose again. Again, it is a triage system. If you are not hurt bad, you will wait until those more critical are treated first.

ERs are just the point of entry to a hospital for the uninsured.
If you need treatment, you will be transferred to the proper department for that treatment.

When EMTALA first was enacted over 1000 ERs were closed because of the financial strain. All hospitals today which abide by the law, and continue to maintain ERs can handle the financial load of uninsured patients(they pass the cost on to those who do pay, of course).


Health care as a right means being able to get non-emergency health care and ongoing treatment for conditions like diabetes, cancer, infectious disease vaccinations, and other things, not just emergencies. ERs treat non emergency conditions.
And if you don't know where the free clinics are in your area, then that is just something else you don't know.

You can go into any ER and get those conditions treated.
You can go into our local county hospital and get nicotine patches if you like. Birth control even. Insulin and strips. Condoms.
Just because you don't know that people do it, does not mean it does not work that way. It works that way.

Right, and it makes a lot of sense to stuff people into emergency rooms for non-emergencies. And what... emergency room physicians are going to know about your chronic problem and treat it there? You're going to get chemo from an emergency room? Why do you think that when you go into an ER that you stay there?
You are going to be admitted to the hospital, and get a bed, and care if you need it.
I'm incredulous that you actually believe that a patient will stay in an ER. It is unbelievable that you are entering into this discussion with that apparent belief.


Somehow I doubt that. And so productive too to have someone sit in a emergency room lobby for 8 hours instead of treating them and letting them go to work or take care of their families. If you wait for 8 hours, that means there are more sick people than you being treated. That would not change under any conceivable health care system change.

How long do you have to wait to get an appointment with your regular doc. A few days, a week. That is a lot more hours than 8.

And further, you're absolutely full of **** on this. http://www.medlaw.com/handout.htm

You won't get follow up care.

Imagine if we ran fire departments like we do health care. Let's let the free market run that too.

*Brrrrng* *brrrrng*

"Hello LA Fire department where's the fire?"

"24th and Lancaster! Our 4 year old daughter is trapped on the 2nd floor! Please hurry!"

"Ok, let me just look up your policy. Oh... you don't have fire insurance. I'm sorry, we'll just have to let her burn. Next time, please get fire rescue insurance". Our healthcare system does not work that way. Not since the early 80s. That is why EMTALA was written and passed. That was 25 years ago.

I bet you think that all nurses are female and wear white skirts with white hats and red crosses on them, all doctors are male, and no one wears gloves. Or that there are orderlies roaming the halls. Your perception of what a hospital is, or how it might work, is completely out of date, and is not reality. It's not like the Marcus Welby MD, or Medical Center days.

Of course you will. You just have to go to the ER again.Frequent Flyers.
ER nurses know the regulars by name, know everything about them.

They come in all the time. And are treated. So what?

If they had a regular doc, they would have to make an appointment. If they go into the ER, they are treated right then.

Try and do that with a regular office Doc. Just walk in and get treated.

If your point is that this system is fundamentally retarded, I agree completely.


When someone states, "XX Million Americans without health care/insurance" blah blah blah.

That is code for XX Million Americans not paying into the system.

There is nothing fundamentally retarded about the system as it is today, other than that there are millions not paying.

That is what any new system will attempt to change. It is code to force those XX Million Americans to pay into the system, or for someone to pay more than they do right now. To increase revenue. Money in politics means power, and those who want to change the system want that increase in power.

All the major pharmcos have what are called PAPs.

http://www.rxassist.org/

They give away meds for free. Or next to free.
Including glucometers strips and insulin.

If you ever went to a free clinic you would know that.

Poor people know about it, they use them.
Rich educated media enlightened Liberals don't.

Ultimately, it is those who can pay for their meds which underwrite the programs. But that would not be any different under any possible new system.

If they had a regular doc, they would have to make an appointment. If they go into the ER, they are treated right then.

Try and do that with a regular office Doc. Just walk in and get treated.The difference is, I don't have to wait hours when I go to a doctor's appointment -- because it's, uh, an appointment.

I think most people with a non-urgent condition would rather make an appointment a few days from now and show up for 10 minutes, than wait for hours on end in a room full of sick people. Especially if health care reform will require them to have insurance and pay for it (ER visits usually involve huge co-pays/deductibles under most individuals health care plans).

And here in San Francisco, there are boutique medical practices where you can get an appointment in an hour or two if you need it. You could probably even walk in and get treated immediately sometimes.That is code for XX Million Americans not paying into the system.

There is nothing fundamentally retarded about the system as it is today, other than that there are millions not paying.What's retarded is how much we spend on them, not the fact that we have to spend anything on them.

The latter is a given in any socialist system. The rich support the poor.

ERs cost a fortune. Doctor's appointments don't. Even UCSF doctors only charge around $200 for a 10 minute appointment, but a typical ER visit could cost thousands.

ERs cost a fortune. Doctor's appointments don't. Even UCSF doctors only charge around $200 for a 10 minute appointment, but a typical ER visit could cost thousands.
They don't really cost a fortune.

Let me give you a example.

If I run a clothing store.
I sell shirts for 10 dollars.
They cost me 5 dollars wholesale.
y staff and overhead cost 4 dollars.

But I have shrinkage of 10 percent. 10 percent of my shirts go out the store in customers bags without paying. I have to charge an extra 10 percent to make up the loss.

So I have to change the cost of my shirts to 11 dollars.

If my shrinkage is 50%. My shirts should cost 15 dollars. But now the shrinkage is getting so bad, that the amount of total shirts is going down so much. I'm selling much less shirts per month(but my staff and overhead costs remain the same). I have to make up that difference now too.

So to make it up with margin, instead of turn my shirts cost 20 bucks.

They don't really cost 20 dollars.

It is the same thing with ERs. They don't really cost more. They are priced as a separate cost center with different pricing, because of the high number of people who don't pay, and those who are on government health care, which based on DRGs don't pay retail(and usually less than wholesale).

So the difference of what everyone who is not paying, and not paying enough, gets passed on to those who do pay for their care.

Tell me what is different about that, and a total socialized plan.

I'll tell you one thing that is different; right now, only those who are wearing shirts now have to pay for shirts. Under a total socialized plan, even those who never come into my store, never where shirts, will have the government come to them, and take their money to pay for my shrinkage, and everyone else's shirts even when they don't wear them.

All the costs are still gonna be there. And even you have admitted that the cost will increase because of at least 50% inefficiency in administration. You will still have all the doctors, nurses, rad techs, pharmacists, pharm techs, MAs, and RTs and PTs. You are still going to have all of the lawyer tax, liability and malpractice insurance, and risk assessment and management. All of the real(wholesale) costs are relatively static, that is to say that the greatest real costs in healthcare are in labor costs, and in equipment, meds, and supplies that those people use to provide care.

But those are relatively static costs, and wont change under any system change.

ERs really don't cost what the bill says. Everyone knows that.
The shirt only really costs 9 bucks. Even though the tag says 20.
That will never change. And any system change, at this point, is going to do, what it really is intended to do, is disperse the cost to a great number of people, even to, ESPECIALLY to people who don't wear shirts right now.

edit, ERs also cost more that a typical doctors office because they are open all day, and staffed all day. If an ER actually costs 3 times to run than a doctors office, that is because they are open 3 times as much, and require 3 times the staff and overhead. I guarantee you that poor people use ERs 24 hours a day.

What's retarded is how much we spend on them, not the fact that we have to spend anything on them.


You have already admitted, and agree with me, that it will cost more with a total socialized system.

You have admitted that private industry has a very strong motive to decrease costs; implying and agreeing with me that government has NO motivation to decrease costs.

So how exactly is it going to be better, cost wise, under a socialized health system? How is it going to be less expensive? How are you going to control costs?

There is only one real point that is movable here. And other socialized existing systems have shown what that is. By decreasing level of service available.

That is the number one advantage of having a public centralized system. You can ration healthcare more effectively. You can make system wide changes to decrease the level of service to everyone.

Right now, you can't do that. When a person receives service right now is completely unmanageable. Because that person can go to the next hospital, if they chose, and get something done faster.

1) All of the existing real costs are going to be there under any system
2) Increased number of payers, not presently using the system
2a) Increased number of players now, because of entitlement expectations
3) Increased bureaucracy and administration costs
4) No profit motive to decrease actual costs
5) Ability to centrally ration healthcare to patients and customers

Tell me what I am missing to make your system better?

It is going to cost more, and provide less.

You have already admitted, and agree with me, that it will cost more with a total socialized system.No I didn't. Every other socialized system costs less than ours does.You have admitted that private industry has a very strong motive to decrease costs; implying and agreeing with me that government has NO motivation to decrease costs.Costs TO THEMSELVES. Not costs to the consumer.

I don't care whether a system allows a small group of rich old white men lower THEIR costs. I care if it allows ME to lower MY costs.So how exactly is it going to be better, cost wise, under a socialized health system? How is it going to be less expensive? How are you going to control costs?For one, you can deduct health insurance company profits and executive compensation from a socialized system. That's billions of dollars ($10+ billion in profits alone) that we don't have to pay, because the government doesn't respond to shareholders and doesn't employ executives with $10+ million salaries.

Second, we fire many of the administrative people who will become unnecessary under a single payer system.

Of course, to reach the low costs of other countries such as Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, and so on, we will also need other things such as tort reform, lower salaries, and longer wait times for non-urgent conditions.

But in the end, they pay a lot less than we do and are healthier than we are. Even countries that eat junk food all day and don't exercise, just as we do.

How do you think they do that?

No I didn't. Every other socialized system costs less than ours does. By decreasing service. That is the only spoke in the wheel which is flexible to change, to change and lower costs.

Everyone knows that.


Costs TO THEMSELVES. Not costs to the consumer.
If it costs less to make a widget, the widget costs less at the cashier. In a competitive market.

Only in a socialist system is there no motivation to reduce the cost of the widget to those who are paying for it.

So your alternative to to increase costs to the non consumer. To those who don't even buy it now.

I admit that it is an untapped resource. Is it really ethical to tap it?


I don't care whether a system allows a small group of rich old white men lower THEIR costs.
The biggest shareholders in corporations are those with retirement funds, PERS, CalPers, 401Ks 403bs, mutual funds, etc.

Old white men are customers of healthcare. They are not the owners.

I care if it allows ME to lower MY costs. For one, you can deduct health insurance company profits and executive compensation from a socialized system. You are trading the 10 percent profit that they make for increased costs of running the thing, and decreased level of service.


That's billions of dollars ($10+ billion in profits alone) that we don't have to pay, because the government doesn't respond to shareholders and doesn't employ executives with $10+ million salaries. Are there really that many 10 million dollar executives.

Fortune 500 companies can have CEOs which can make that. But that is only 500 people. Out of how many?

Second, we fire many of the administrative people who will become unnecessary under a single payer system. You're kidding right.
You are going to put healthcare in the same hands the likes of the DMV, and you are going to fire administrative people.

You are talking about the government. They take one job and make it into 10.

Of course, to reach the low costs of other countries such as Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, and so on, we will also need other things such as tort reform, lower salaries, and longer wait times for non-urgent conditions. Lower service. Exactly. I agree.

But in the end, they pay a lot less than we do and are healthier than we are. Even countries that eat junk food all day and don't exercise, just as we do. Japan has 1/10 the lawyers we have. You don't think that has an impact on healthcare costs here. And expectations of customers.

Just for fun.
I would like you to look up the cost of risk management in a typical hospital, versus, the risk management cost in any hospital in any of your example systems.

I bet that even without researching it, that you intuitively know that risk management costs in hospitals in the US is substantially greater than in any of your commie countries.




I do like what China does with outbreaks of infections, though. We certainly could use their isolation and quarantine systems here.

Flu A(H1N1), would have been stopped already(just like SARS). Right now, it is spreading like crazy.


How do you think they do that? Lower level of service, and lower expectations of their patients and customers.

Only with a centralized social healthcare system can you systematically lower level of service and get away with it. You know that is true.

That is the only real reason any existing social program, or proposed program works.

If it costs less to make a widget, the widget costs less at the cashier. In a competitive market.Insurance companies have a built-in incentive NOT to compete. Not just for the same general reason that applies to industries dominated by a few big companies, but also for actuarial reasons, and for lack of transparency.

By keeping their policies the same, they can better predict their costs, the effect of legal judgments, and so on. So their policies, and practices, are the same, except for some minor details.

And the lack of transparency makes it difficult for a consumer to put pricing pressure on an insurance company, since the consumer doesn't really know how that company is going to handle claims, as that is something they like to keep as secret as possible.

Your capitalist strategy will NEVER work well.You are trading the 10 percent profit that they make for increased costs of running the thing, and decreased level of service.Prove it.

The Japanese spend less than 40% of what we do per capita (from OECD 2009 health data (http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html)), yet have five times the hospital beds, three times the number of acute care beds, three times the number of doctor visits, the same number of nurses, and 90% of the number of physicians, all this per capita. They are also much healthier than we are, with higher life expectancy and less disease in virtually every category except suicide, if you consider that a "disease".

In short, they spend far less, provide far more, and maintain better health in their population. Completely the opposite of what you claim.

Japan is not an outlying example either. Most other rich countries are the same, using their socialized health care system.

All the evidence shows that socialist health care countries are better, not worse, than we are in providing service.

Unless you can prove otherwise. (A bald assertion without supporting evidence is not proof.)

Insurance companies have a built-in incentive NOT to compete. Not just for the same general reason that applies to industries dominated by a few big companies, but also for actuarial reasons, and for lack of transparency.

By keeping their policies the same, they can better predict their costs, the effect of legal judgments, and so on. So their policies, and practices, are the same, except for some minor details.

And the lack of transparency makes it difficult for a consumer to put pricing pressure on an insurance company, since the consumer doesn't really know how that company is going to handle claims, as that is something they like to keep as secret as possible. If that is true, that is in complete violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act.

If this really is the case, why isn't the government you trust so much, blowing these companies out of the water?

The Japanese spend less than 40% of what we do per capita (from OECD 2009 health data (http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html)), yet have five times the hospital beds, three times the number of acute care beds, three times the number of doctor visits, the same number of nurses, and 90% of the number of physicians, all this per capita. They are also much healthier than we are, with higher life expectancy and less disease in virtually every category except suicide, if you consider that a "disease".
Did you see the relative differences in overweight and obesity?

Kinda cool, huh?

Did you see the relative differences in overweight and obesity?Explain Western Europe and Scandinavia, where there aren't such differences, but they still achieve the costs savings, high quality of care, and better life expectancy?

It's socialism.

Kinda cool, huh?

If that is true, that is in complete violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act.

If this really is the case, why isn't the government you trust so much, blowing these companies out of the water?Because it isn't the case.

There is no agreement (like a price fixing conspiracy), so it doesn't violation Section 1. And there is no monopolization, so it doesn't violation Section 2.

There is simply no incentive to compete because of the nature of the industry, and there's nothing illegal about that.

Explain Western Europe and Scandinavia, where there aren't such differences, but they still achieve the costs savings, high quality of care, and better life expectancy?

It's socialism.

Kinda cool, huh?
Even big ol fat Michael Moore showed that Europeans in Sicko that they do not have the obesity that Americans(or himself) have.

American life expectancy statistically includes low birth weight babies, and extreme premature births. Those skew any numerical differences dramatically. Those babies are not 'born', to be counted other countries.

Again, like Japan, that is a matter of culture. Low birth weight babies are a result of women taking drugs and alcohol, in our culture, which is a problem other cultures and countries do not have to deal with.

If you removed all of the pre 40 week gestation birth deaths from the mortality rates of Americans. And if you removed all of the dollars that Americans spend on extreme preemie survival expenditures, you will see a normalization.

No one wants to do that, because we Puritanical Americans consider those infants as born, alive, and human. They don't get that chance in many other industrial countries. They are written off(as stillborn and spontaneous abortions).

Your Excel spreadsheet does not even contain the word 'premature', least 'find' did not find it. I will stand corrected if you find it for me.

Secondary to obesity, of gestational women, is gestational diabetes. Which increase substantially the chances of C Section births, which we all know cost more than vag births. It is a surgical procedure, requires not only an ObGyn, but a surgeon, a CRNA or Anethesiologist, and a team of surg techs and nurses. They are expensive, in real terms and costs, over a vag birth which is usually limited to an ObGyn and a nurse or two.

Those babies go into a NICU situation(read very very very expensive) just like preemies.

We have a lot of 40+ week high birth weight births, secondary to maternal obsesity. Which really is not an issue in other developed countries just because they are not as obese as our country is.

Image if Norway had this.//...
http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/
Don't Snopes this, its really real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_to_Advance_Fat_Acceptance

Can you believe this/that nonsense?

Because it isn't the case.

There is no agreement (like a price fixing conspiracy), so it doesn't violation Section 1. And there is no monopolization, so it doesn't violation Section 2.

There is simply no incentive to compete because of the nature of the industry, and there's nothing illegal about that.
I was just commenting on your insinuation. Which suggested collusion.

I just watched a segment today on the Communist News Network with Fox Blitzen. They had a Congressman, and a constituent doctor debating nationalized healthcare.

At least at the end the Congressman stated that there was collusion between insurance companies. Which, hell freezing flying pigs over, I agree with you and him on. They are going to meet on Tues and have a beer together....

Stay tuned.

To me, the easiest way to put insurance companies out of business is to not use them to pay for your healthcare. An HSA does that. And it is an ethical way of doing so, without a hiring a single government employee to bureaucratize it.

The second way is to have them compete with an independently self insured corporation. An HSA does that. It is ethical to force people to be responsible for their own share and cost. That is ethical. And fair.

If everyone were FORCED to have an HSA, if not otherwise competitively covered, that would essentially delete 75%+ of the revenue that insurance companies.

I have no problem putting insurance companies out of business competitively. I'm forced by the state to carry liability insurance, how far of a step is it to force people to be responsible for their own healthcare services that they get? If it destroys and kills insurance corporations, why don't you see that as a big ol free bonus.

Even big ol fat Michael Moore showed that Europeans in Sicko that they do not have the obesity that Americans(or himself) have.It's close enough. And if you look at the article I cited earlier, obesity accounts for about 10% of our health care costs.

Your numbers, or hypothetical numbers really, just don't add up to our staggering health care costs. Unless you're prepared to prove what you're saying, instead of merely speculating about it.Image if Norway had this.//...
http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/France does: http://www.pri.org/theworld/?q=node/14066

But it's not much different than tobacco acceptance, or acceptance of the most dangerous drug of all time, alcohol.

There's stupidity everywhere in the world, not just in the United States.

I was just commenting on your insinuation. Which suggested collusion.It's not collusion per se. It's just a lack of incentive to compete. Capitalism often goes awry in this manner, in situations where market forces naturally work against competition.

It's not illegal to not compete if you simply don't want to. It's only illegal to agree not to compete.To me, the easiest way to put insurance companies out of business is to not use them to pay for your healthcare. An HSA does that.An HSA requires insurance.

REQUIRES. Or else by law you can't do it.

When are you going to get this idiotic idea of your head, that HSAs hurt insurance companies?

On the contrary, insurance companies LOVE HSAs because they can make a huge profit by selling you a crappy policy at a price artificially inflated through taxpayer subsidies. That's why they all immediately lined up to offer them when they became available.

It's corporate welfare, and there's nothing better than getting free money from the government just for doing nothing.The second way is to have them compete with an independently self insured corporation.Right. You are going to start a corporation and compete from day one with 800 pound gorillas that rake in $75 billion in revenue every year.

Good luck with that.If everyone were FORCED to have an HSA, if not otherwise competitively covered, that would essentially delete 75%+ of the revenue that insurance companies.No, it would give insurance companies MORE profit. Not only would it come from the customers, but there would be an extra stream from the taxpayers.

Those rich old white men will be laughing all the way to the bank, and at your expense.

The horrors of socialized medicine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Us1KARFeE

This would never happen in America, where health care is perfect (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/12/ED1D1974ID.DTL).

So all you racis--err, "Republicans," after you disrupt town hall meetings like a bunch of spoiled two-year-olds, go paint swastikas outside your local black Congressman's office (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/11/national/w092521D82.DTL) in protest!

Now that's the American way!

Good luck with that.No, it would give insurance companies MORE profit. Not only would it come from the customers, but there would be an extra stream from the taxpayers.
.

Insurance companies don't make their profit off of premiums.
They make their profit off of investing the money from those premiums, NOW.

I just don't know why you don't understand this. It is rather simple.

Insurance companies take your premiums. Invest it in the market, bonds, mutual funds. Make money off of that, and then use the returns to pay claims, and pay dividends.

You know that right?

They don't take your premium check and put it into a pool to make payouts. You don't think that, do you?

So all you racis--err, "Republicans," after you disrupt town hall meetings like a bunch of spoiled two-year-olds, go paint swastikas outside your local black Congressman's office (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/11/national/w092521D82.DTL) in protest!



I agree, everyone who opposes socialized healthcare is a racist. They are all swastika spray painting NAZIs.

Is this a pathos argument, or a retardos argument?

Insurance companies don't make their profit off of premiums.
They make their profit off of investing the money from those premiums, NOW.Don't confuse profit and revenue.

Insurance company premiums make up the overwhelming majority of their revenue (90% or more, depending on their investment strategies). Investment income is NOT their primary source of revenue, although it is a necessary additional source for them to actually make a profit.

Profit is revenue minus expenses (claims).

HSAs are more profitable for them, because under an HSA they have to pay the least in claims, since it is the most bare-bones policy.

However, because the federal (and most state) governments subsidize them through a tax incentive, the insurer can charge more in premiums than the policy would otherwise be worth.

Put differently, if HSAs had NO tax incentive attached to them, the insurers would be forced to lower their prices.

It's the same reason municipalities can sell bonds offering much lower interest rates than the federal government can: because the federal government subsidizes municipal bonds through a tax incentive.

Get it now?

I agree, everyone who opposes socialized healthcare is a racist. They are all swastika spray painting NAZIs.

Is this a pathos argument, or a retardos argument?Well, that has been the prevailing response from those opposing Obama's and Congress's plan. To basically riot and try to derail the process through distraction. I haven't seen a coordinated intelligent response from the "Republicans" or other anti-Obama folks.

I was walking down the street today and saw street corner flyer spammers with a little poster of Obama with a Hitleresque mustache, and some slogan about health care. Yes, in San Francisco. They had nothing better to say, so they figured that they'd try to convince stupid people that Obama must be like Hitler because they say so, and since people won't like them if they like Hitler, they shouldn't like Obama either.

It isn't the first Hitler reference I've seen in regards to Obama's plan either. Ironic, how they try to tie him (a half-black man, no less) to the Nazis, while they are the ones spray painting the swastikas.

No I don't get it now.

I get to keep more of my money.
And get to keep my money tax deferred. And invest that money intelligently, and keep all of it as an asset.
I pay less for the insurance policy.

And insurance companies make more profit, percentage wise, but less money by 2 thirds, because I am paying for my own healthcare. And file no claims with them.

And that is a bad thing for you.

I'm really at a loss as how you think this is bad. I really am at a loss as how to respond to you and your opinion.

Not only that but you are demonizing people keeping their own money, tax deferred, and criticizing it. As a SOCIALIST. I'm a smart guy, I can normally put two opposing views in my head at the same time. But I can't reconcile how you do that.

Let me rephrase that, I can't see how you reconcile that. I have tried to place both ideas in my head at the same time, and it does not fit.

Just don't.

1) It is bad for an individual to get a tax break on their health insurance, to pay for their own care.
2) It is OK to take all of that money as a tax, and have the government take all of it to spend.

I can't see it. How does one get to that, what steps do you have to take for that to make sense.

Corporations and employers have been allowed to write off health insurance for decades. Allowing individuals to deduct their health insurance costs is the RIGHT and ethical thing to do. For you to say that individuals should pay tax on healthcare costs, when corporations and employers have not for years just is incredulous to me.

Well, that has been the prevailing response from those opposing Obama's and Congress's plan. To basically riot and try to derail the process through distraction. I haven't seen a coordinated intelligent response from the "Republicans" or other anti-Obama folks.

I was walking down the street today and saw street corner flyer spammers with a little poster of Obama with a Hitleresque mustache, and some slogan about health care. Yes, in San Francisco. They had nothing better to say, so they figured that they'd try to convince stupid people that Obama must be like Hitler because they say so, and since people won't like them if they like Hitler, they shouldn't like Obama either.

It isn't the first Hitler reference I've seen in regards to Obama's plan either. Ironic, how they try to tie him (a half-black man, no less) to the Nazis, while they are the ones spray painting the swastikas.
Prevailing?
Prevailing?
Prevailing?
Prevailing?

You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

I'm sorry, I never debate anyone who I think is an inferior foe.

If you have the intellect, where you are buying the spin from the Obama campaign and CNN, NYT, etc, that all dissenters and opponents are NAZIs. I have lost the utter last shred of hope that you are a worthy opponent.

I'm not talking about rhetoric. I can deal with that from you. But if you really believe that ****. Which it appears you do.... This board is gonna die, because there is nothing left here for me here. If you really believe that propaganda.

If you really do believe that ****. I will bid you fond adieu. Take care man. And buy Tinsi a whale steak, Pan a G Biersch for me when you ever see them.

No I don't get it now.

I get to keep more of my money.Because I'm paying for part of it. Not because it's "cheaper".And insurance companies make more profit, percentage wise, but less money by 2 thirds, because I am paying for my own healthcare. And file no claims with them.If you file no claims and pay for your own stuff, they are making more money, not less money.

They love you.

You're like the guy who pays for the gym membership but never shows up.I'm really at a loss as how you think this is bad. I really am at a loss as how to respond to you and your opinion.I was responding to your statement: "If everyone were FORCED to have an HSA, if not otherwise competitively covered, that would essentially delete 75%+ of the revenue that insurance companies."

That statement is FALSE.

Now if you concede that point and want to change the topic to whether HSAs are "bad", then I'll gladly explain to you (again).

The key to HSAs is the tax advantage, and that advantage only applies to high earners. The HSA cost and benefit level is also geared towards the high earner. However, high earners already have no trouble paying for health care. The people who DO have trouble get virtually no tax benefit from an HSA, and it isn't a good deal for them.

Also, HSAs solve none of the problems inherent to privatized insurance, caused by the fundamental conflict between the business interest and the public interest.

So HSAs solve a problem that doesn't exist, while ignoring the problem that DOES exist, all the while spending the taxpayer's money and funneling it to insurance companies, so a bunch of rich old white men can get even richer.

If you have the intellect, where you are buying the spin from the Obama campaign and CNN, NYT, etc, that all dissenters and opponents are NAZIs. I have lost the utter last shred of hope that you are a worthy opponent.Where did I say that?

The prevailing* response from the opposition is just as I described. Riots, anger, and hate. It doesn't mean they're all Nazis (although at least some of them ARE undoubtedly Nazis, as evidenced by the swastikas, and are just using health care as an excuse to lash out).

I don't see the "Republicans" (or, generally, the anti-Obama folks) coming together and offering an intelligent rebuttal and solution.

I see them riling up people who are already angry, and pushing them to tear down the process instead of working together to find a solution.

I see it in the news, and I see it for myself walking down the street. I saw it just today, with my own eyes, unfiltered by CNN or the Obama campaign.

If you're afraid to debate that point intelligently, we can just leave it there.

*pre⋅vail⋅ing -adjective
1. predominant: prevailing winds.
2. generally current: the prevailing opinion.
3. having superior power or influence.
4. effectual.

Ya, the predominant theme is Obama is a socialist movement in the town hall meetings going on now. While I certainly expected the citizens to be quite passionate about this issue, it is getting allittle bit much, to the point where someone may get injured. Mostly, they seem to have bought into the Obama is a socialist movement. As well as the laughable Sarah Palin death panel comments. The issue at hand is quite farther from the truth, which is the point Obama's adminstration, there is little socialization on the issue.

y own issues of dissent towards the bill, has very little to do with socialization. My issues stems from government programs such as FFEL, which could have been a self sustaining government program for citizens to take advantage of with return on the investments into their scholastic education, with similar programs also made available to citizens which will invariably pay for themselves, not subsidize companies like Sallie Mae completely risk free. On the plus side, lowered tax rates. With the current plan on board for congress, I see them doing just that subsidizing insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and so on, at my expense. To top it off I would get little say in the matter.

I certainly see Fyrr's points with HSA's. That can in fact be a way to go. I am alittle curious though how it would relate to coverages in the now. Like say I just got an HSA yesterday, but, I got robbed and shot the day after, so, I need the coverage now as an example? All indicators seem to be it would work great for later in life when you start piling up the cancer bills, heart attacks, things like that.

This leads me to the shouldn't it be better to instead pay for the insurance premiums, but,to directly finance a nationalized healthcare system beyond the current scope we do now, with my taxes and bring down health care costs across the board. It certainly works for other countries. I also wonder if such a program would also work towards mental health? Work better for senior citizens? Given with my previous militiary history, whre I was involved already in health care programs like that, it worked fine for the most part, until dealing with civilian institutations.

Would nationalized healthcare by giving less health care as Fyrr argues actually help issues like perscription drug medication abuse that is the number one drug of choice nowadays? Would this reduce the amount of over perscribed anitbiotics and how they relate towards drug resistent bacterial infections such as staphoccochus? Would this lead to more of Tuskigee experiments where black men were injected with syphillis intentionally in the the 50's. Also,the ever popular anthrax injection and illness related to the vaccine I received from the Army?

I am alittle curious though how it would relate to coverages in the now. Like say I just got an HSA yesterday, but, I got robbed and shot the day after, so, I need the coverage now as an example? All indicators seem to be it would work great for later in life when you start piling up the cancer bills, heart attacks, things like that.Fyyr is misrepresenting HSAs.

They are regular insurance policies. If you buy it today, put nothing in savings, and get hit by a bus tomorrow, your insurance company pays, or should pay, for your medical expenses, after you pay the maximum annual out of pocket expense in the policy.

The same is true if you have a million dollars saved up already: the insurance company pays according to the policy.

It is NOT self-insurance. It is merely a tax dodge for high earners, that we all subsidize.

With the outrageous cost of health care, that goes up 20% a year, you would have to be extraordinarily wealthy to build up enough of a savings for any medical emergencies. People who can do that, can also afford to buy insurance.I also wonder if such a program would also work towards mental health? Work better for senior citizens? Given with my previous militiary history, whre I was involved already in health care programs like that, it worked fine for the most part, until dealing with civilian institutations.Senior citizens are already covered by Medicare, a well-functioning socialized medical system just like every other developed country has (except that here, it only applies to those age 65+).Would nationalized healthcare by giving less health care as Fyrr argues actually help issues like perscription drug medication abuse that is the number one drug of choice nowadays? Would this reduce the amount of over perscribed anitbiotics and how they relate towards drug resistent bacterial infections such as staphoccochus? Would this lead to more of Tuskigee experiments where black men were injected with syphillis intentionally in the the 50's.Do any of those things happen in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, and so on?

There's your answer.

As well as the laughable Sarah Palin death panel comments.Yes, she can't make up her mind. She claims she's anti-socialism, except when it comes to her kid who needs socialism, and then she defends it.

And the chairman of the Republican party (the token black guy) said her comments were appropriate. Even though they're idiotic.

The Republican party is tacitly approving all these fear-mongering comments, because they're out of ideas.

Prevailing opinion, Fyyr. Prevailing opinion.

(Currently) to have a HSA, you must have a high deductible insurance plan, and you can only contribute up to your deductible every year. The cap is $2,900 for individual plans and $5,800 for family plans.

The idea is to have people covered for catastrophic stuff (via HDHP) and to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic stuff (via HSA.)

So yeah, rich people aren't likely to have high deductible insurance plan and they're not likely to get one to only put $5,800 a year in a tax preferred account.

What some republicans want to do (Paul Ryan in the house, Jim DeMint in the senate) is to allow employers to contribute pre tax money to employee's HSAs, and then allow people to buy any type of insurance they want through their HSA.

What some republicans want to do (Paul Ryan in the house, Jim DeMint in the senate) is to allow employers to contribute pre tax money to employee's HSAs, and then allow people to buy any type of insurance they want through their HSA.
Problem is, your Republican friends don't want to regulate the insurance companies at all so they'll still continue to cherry pick their subscribers and continue to kick them out without paying their bills if they can possibly get away with it. So we'll still all have the same problems:

1) You can't shop around for health care. Try to get a price list from a hospital some day.

2) People with even the smallest of pre-existing conditions still won't be able to get coverage.

3) Recission will still be abused like it is now.

The Republican solution is as stupid a non-solution as it ever was.

In other words:

"It may or may not be a good idea, but it was thought it by people I disagree with it, therefore it must be a dumb idea."

In other words:

"It may or may not be a good idea, but it was thought it by people I disagree with it, therefore it must be a dumb idea."Can you read?

It solves none of the problems with the current system. NONE.

It is NOT a good idea, no matter who is proposing it.

Well I take that back, it is a good idea for the rich old white men owning the insurance companies. They will get extra taxpayer-subsidized profits for doing the exact same job, at our expense. But it won't be good for the rest of us.

I certainly see Fyrr's points with HSA's. That can in fact be a way to go. I am alittle curious though how it would relate to coverages in the now. Like say I just got an HSA yesterday, but, I got robbed and shot the day after, so, I need the coverage now as an example? All indicators seem to be it would work great for later in life when you start piling up the cancer bills, heart attacks, things like that.
?
Let us suppose that you are young.
And decide on an HSA, which is really the best f'n time to start one. I sure as sh1t would have had one, if it were an option when I was 20.

You are 20.
Start your HSA.
Worst case scenario....

You start your HSA, pay your 90 bucks for the HDIP(High Deductible Insurance Policy), and put 200 into your health bank account. You have a 2000 dollar deductible.

Right after you open your account, that first month, you are shot in the back.
You go to the hospital. Go to ER. Get transferred to OR. The up to ICU.
They fix you up. Your deductible is 2000 bucks. You already paid 200(tax free, pre tax).
Your bill however is 60,000.
You pay the 1800 bucks, for the deductible, 200 is taken out of your account. The insurance company pays the rest. You were going to put that 1800 into the account over the next 9 months anyway.

/shrug. You were already going to put that money into your account.
You are saved. You live. You are not out of anything. In the worst case hit by a bus scenario.

Best case is, that you pay much much less for insurance. Put 2000 into your HSA account each year, tax free, accruing 10% interest. And when you are 40, and still healthy, you have like half a million dollars to your name. In your own account, tax free. At the same time, paying 1/3, or less, what you would have been paying to an insurance company in the first place.

Tudamorf does not like the tax free part. He's a Commie, and believes that all the money that you make belongs to the government in the first place, and every bit you get to keep is akin to stealing. If you keep the money you earn, you are stealing from everyone else. Because without the government, you would NEVER EVER been able to make ANY money at all.

At 40 years old, with 500K in your bank, what medical procedure can you not pay for for yourself? Out of your own pocket.

At like 50, you are at a million bucks.

Now all that money going into your HSA is tax free. Spend it on medical expenses, like your gun shot wound. NO TAX.

At 65, you can start taking money out of the account like a retirement account. At your present income tax bracket, no penalty.

That is how insurance companies make their money. By investing the money you send them, which you don't use, for 30-50 years. Building interest and dividends on your premiums. Those are their assets, and where their profits come from, and where their claims payouts come from.

Want to take the money out earlier?, you can. Just like a retirement account. Take it out, pay the income tax, pay the 10% penalty. YOUR MONEY. Want to borrow against it, at a 3 percent rate, no tax, no penalty, you do? YOUR MONEY.

In the worst case scenarios, that Tudamorf throws up as an objection to HSAs,,,,those are where the insurance company loses out the most. The hit by a bus, shot in the back scenario after only 1 month,,,they only got paid 100 bucks. And now they have to pay out 60 or 80K.

But when you read back what he also wrote, that insurance companies LOVE HSAs. You know why? They have the actuary tables. They know that you won't be hit by a bus, or shot in the back. They know that much of their costs are from nickle and dime payouts. Which you would be sending to your insurance company if you did not have an HSA. You will just hand the provider your card, it is card swiped, and the money will be deducted, tax free money, from your HSA account. From money that you would have otherwise have already have sent off to your insurance company.

Problem is, your Republican friends don't want to regulate the insurance companies .

How better to regulate insurance companies than to cut their revenues by 2 thirds?

And you, >YOU<, get to keep the difference.

I don't get you people.

y motives are

That people are responsible for their own ****.
That they save their own money. Pay their own way.
That they pay less taxes.
Save money for themselves.
Pay less for healthcare.
And have less people telling them what to do.

Of those 6 things, you critics have some problems.

Obviously, not everyone likes those 6 things. I don't know why.

Obviously, there is some ulterior motive here, underlying the critics responses. They want something different that those 6 things.

1) You can't shop around for health care. Try to get a price list from a hospital some day. Cash payers always pay less than those on payments or credit. An HSA makes you, as a consumer, a cash payer for any service you want.

I do shop around for health care. Have shopped around for healthcare. Of course you can shop around for health care.

I'm buying my healthcare for the tune of close to $16,000 per year. I'm gonna get my money's worth, I assure you.

2) People with even the smallest of pre-existing conditions still won't be able to get coverage. That is criminal, against HIPAA, at the very least. And if there is not a law against it otherwise...Make that the law.

3) Recission will still be abused like it is now Tied to Number 2. Pre-existing conditions is a matter of privacy, for one. Second, in a system of cost dispersion, not just risk dispersion, pre existing conditions are negligible. If I join a company, and get group health care, pre existing conditions dont matter.

Individual policies should be grouped with every other group plan. Just like Kaiser. If not a policy like KP, then it should be law.

What you are talking about is Blue Cross, Blue Shield. Force them by law, and every other insurance company, to provide coverage to any individual for their lowest corporate group member plan.

ake it equal. Make it fair.

It is a simple and easy solution.

NO TAX.Finally, you get to the point.

HSAs are about dodging taxes, and nothing more.

Dodging taxes is the functional equivalent of a government subsidy. For every dollar you don't pay to treasury, the rest of us have to pitch in an extra dollar.

You want the taxpayers to subsidize high earners who already have no problem at all getting health insurance, while doing nothing about all those people who do have a problem getting insurance.

You have it backwards. We need to stop giving freebies to high earners who already are all set with health care, and instead make sure that everyone, including those who get little or no benefit from tax deductions, has coverage.

In other words:

"It may or may not be a good idea, but it was thought it by people I disagree with it, therefore it must be a dumb idea."
That's just pathetic. I came up with some solid reasons why Republicans health care proposal constantly fall short and that's what you come back with? I mean the "death panels" argument would be a step up from this.

nm

You are wrong, of course. What else is old. HSAs are about people taking responsibility for their own purchases in healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otn375mggeM&feature=related

Singapore is #2 in both life expectancy (behind only Japan) and infant mortality (behind only Iceland.)

There's another country where people had insurance for catastrophic stuff and paid mostly out of pocket otherwise; it's called the US in the 50s and early 60s. Most European countries had single payer back than, and the US was relatively better off back in health stats back than.

So yeah. It works.

That's just pathetic. I came up with some solid reasons why Republicans health care proposal constantly fall short and that's what you come back with? I mean the "death panels" argument would be a step up from this.

I don't see where I was implying that was comprehensive health care reform or whether I was even a republican (which btw, I'm not) or if I support what the republicans say (which I don't) or everything they try to pass (which I don't.)

I pointed out a very particular proposal regarding HSAs, which I support, and you replied with something totally off topic. "Problem is, your Republican friends don't want to regulate the insurance companies"

If you're looking to play partisan politics, find a partisan. I'm not interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otn375mggeM&feature=related

Singapore is #2 in both life expectancy (behind only Japan) and infant mortality (behind only Iceland.)

There's another country where people had insurance for catastrophic stuff and paid mostly out of pocket otherwise; it's called the US in the 50s and early 60s. Most European countries had single payer back than, and the US was relatively better off back in health stats back than.

So yeah. It works.
The US heathcare system treats 24 week old gestation births as viable human beings who are born, and deserve all the expenditure available.

ost all other countries consider them as still births, when they are born that way.

Not only does that skew our numbers for death rates.
But increases our costs per capita, because premature care, NICU care, is really really the most expensive care that takes place.

All other countries put them in the red bag and incinerated them as biowaste. We take care of them, and have more of them.

We have more of them(per capita) because even the poorest poorest of the poor in our country can afford all the alcohol, meth, opioid, and coke that they desire.

Fyyr

You are talking to the brain dead here. You are right in that some folks posting on this forum only believe that the government can solve their problems.

HSA would solve most of the major health problems in this country. Wow letting people have the freedom to make choices for themselves. What a concept--wait that was what our country was founded on. The socialist and communists in this forum will never buy into that concept.

As someone who is responsible for selecting insurance for over 500 people I see the competitive landscape and there is little if any competition in the industry right now. If the government turns into the sole provider just watch as quality and availabilty decrease as there will be zero competition. We are used to gold plated health care in this country and anyone who wants the health care they can get in other countries then move there are go there for treatment. Anyone with money in those countries right now comes to the U.S. for any major procedures.

HSAs would turn the system inside out and treat health care like any other commodity. We need more competition to reduce prices and force changes in quality. The consummer will demand information, price consessions, and needed regulations if they are allowed to be consummers. Right now most people's companies make the choice for them solely on cost considerations. Right now the system is only competitive for large companies, if hospitals and health care providers had to compete for each person separately we would see massive changes from a pricing perspective to a quality perspective. With the government controlling all the choices we will end up with a system that costs more with less quality--why wouldn't we as there is no pressure for the government to ever improve.

HSA would solve most of the major health problems in this country.HSAs would turn the system inside out and treat health care like any other commodity.How?

HSAs are simply regular insurance with a small tax dodge feature added. HSAs policies are sold by the same insurance companies that sell regular policies, at an inflated price of course because there's a taxpayer subsidy.

HSA customers who need expensive procedures still do not care how much it costs, because the insurance company is paying it all anyway after the deductible.

If everyone had an HSA, there would still be no significant competition within the industry, because they have little incentive to compete, for the reasons I've mentioned. HSAs don't do anything in that respect because the tax dodge feature is irrelevant to the insurance company or the health care industry, only to the customer.

HSAs are still unaffordable, or unavailable, for people who are older or have preexisting conditions (and no Fyyr, HIPAA does not cure this, as you've admitted yourself).

The only difference between an HSA and any other insurance policy is that you get a little tax dodge benefit for savings and buying "medical" products like Viagra and vitamins. That's it.

The system is otherwise exactly the same. Same old broken crap where we pay a fortune and get nothing but frustration, while an elite group profits off of us.If the government turns into the sole provider just watch as quality and availabilty decrease as there will be zero competition.Other first world countries have already proven you wrong.

The government runs the system, it's far cheaper, health care quality is equal or superior, and the population is healthier.

In this area, socialism is PROVEN to work. Capitalism is PROVEN not to work.

Singapore is #2 in both life expectancy (behind only Japan) and infant mortality (behind only Iceland.)Singapore's system forces you to set aside part of your pay check for medical expenses.

Singapore's government also heavily regulates medical care, setting prices, providing subsidies, and providing a national health care plan for the expensive stuff.

Not to mention, Singapore is a tiny city-state, with half the population of New York City. They have like, two dozen hospitals, total.

You start your HSA, pay your 90 bucks for the HDIP(High Deductible Insurance Policy), and put 200 into your health bank account.
Yeah, let me know where I can find a plan for $90/month and I'll get right on that.
Since I don't qualify for Healthy NY plans, as far as I can tell I'm looking at an estimated $300/month* in premiums for a HDHP, plus the $200/month I'd be putting into an HSA.

So, whether I went with an HDHP or an ordinary health plan, I'd be looking at health costs of 40% of my combined monthly expenses: rent, utilities, food, transportation, entertainment, etc. And that's if I don't get sick or hurt.

*I could not find an actual offer for an individual non-Healthy NY HDHP. Comparing Healthy NY and non-Healthy NY plans for ordinary HMO plans, it appears the state government covers about 40% of the premium cost for people that qualify. A Healthy NY subsidized HDHP plan costs about $180/month. $180/0.6 = $300.
Also note that a Healthy NY subsidized HMO plan only costs about $40 more than a similar HDHP plan.

There's another country where people had insurance for catastrophic stuff and paid mostly out of pocket otherwise; it's called the US in the 50s and early 60s.I'd gladly allow libertarians to opt out from a socialist health care plan, if they agree to limit themselves to cheap 1950s era health care. That would be great.

One train of through with the socialists--government please solve all my problems. Take no individual responsibility for anything.

I was talking with my HR Manager in England today and asked how many of our employees use the gov't provided health benefits and how many just use their private health plan that the company subsidizes. The vast majority will buy the private insurance because they don't want to wait in line or see a doctor that is so weak that they can't have a private practice. This is what you socialists what--pay higher taxes and get a benefit that is useless due to poor quality.

HSA are a good option coupled with some regulation on allowing pre-existing conditions.

One train of through with the socialists--government please solve all my problems. Take no individual responsibility for anything.HSA are a good option coupled with some regulation on allowing pre-existing conditions. Since you're against government intervention and subsidies, I'm sure you'll be all for removing the tax deduction for HSAs, and each individual taking responsibility for himself for saving for medical care.

Right?

Don't tell me you're not, and that you're one of those closet socialists railing against socialism.

Ok Fyrr, I get all that, it kinda works like a 401k program. So, given that, I do got to wonder if going all HSA's, how would this work for plan changes. Every five to ten years the average American is going to go through a job change. While it would be better to keep just one plan for 30 years or so, provided your insurance provider doesn't goof up(see economy and ramifications for pensions/401k and things like that). How would this work out if all employer related health care plans for workers and their families and their constant work changes?

I would imagine it would go like it did with 401k where the constant plan changes, the rollover 10% fees stuff like that. Or would it essentially with group health care plans force them to go private. That would certainly relieve many businesses of health care expenses, but, they will find more reasons to keep whining they can not make money anyways.

So my other questions, how would this make health care prices go down? I just don't see it happening, even requiring every American to have health insurance and cleaning up the books of hospitals and practices? Other questions I have, there will still be a need for socialized medicines, elderly, handicapped, ordinary Americans that become disabled to a car wreck or something like that. So, how would that work out were we to go to the HSA route?

So my other questions, how would this make health care prices go down?

Do not you think that people spend differently when they're using someone else's money than if they're using their own?

It depends. If they skimp on preventative care in the short term, it may end up costing a lot more in the long run.

Of course people spend money differently when it is not their own. Palarran called it on the preventative care, I would be curious if they provider of an HSA would cover that? Last time I had a complete physical, it ran $450 dollars. A family of four or five is looking at paying out $2250 every 6months, although costs for mammograms, pap smears may run up allittle higher for common physicals. So, big picture here, how would requiring HSA's bring down the cost of the nickel and dime kind of things? The indicators would seem it would work great for me, and people like me who next to never goes to a doctor prefering to go ahead and suffer through the pain, using over the over counter remedies for common ailments, etc.

It might be a state rule but I think in CA an annual physical is covered and doesn't even have to meet your deductible. I'm not 100% positive though.

Although I don't exactly know how they call that preventative, it's more like early detection. Early detection of cancer, early detection of pre-diabetes Type II (which the standard way it is currently treated it will progress to full blown and most likely have you on insulin before you finally die -- I guess it slows it down some).

Truly preventative medicine has to be implemented by the patient for the most part and they rarely want to be bothered with making the necessary lifestyle changes from quitting smoking to buckling up seat-belts, wearing a helmet, stop eating crappy convenience foods and eat real food.

It might be a state rule but I think in CA an annual physical is covered and doesn't even have to meet your deductible.They aren't required to, but under federal law they can provide preventative care outside of the deductible. This includes the actual physical exam part of an annual physical and screening for certain diseases. It doesn't mean it's free, just that you can pay a special rate instead of 100% of the fee as with anything else.

However, if you need any test or treatment beyond the basic exam or screening, you must pay 100% of the cost until you reach your annual deductible. So a $450 physical exam that probably included a lot of extra tests would most likely NOT be fully covered.

So, big picture here, how would requiring HSA's bring down the cost of the nickel and dime kind of things?The bigger question is, how would it bring down the cost of the stuff that is actually causing the health care crisis, and the answer is that it wouldn't, because the cost of all that stuff is way beyond the HSA deductible.

The bigger question is, how would it bring down the cost of the stuff that is actually causing the health care crisis, and the answer is that it wouldn't, because the cost of all that stuff is way beyond the HSA deductible.

No country in the world has managed to find a solution to bring down the cost of healthcare unless it is by draconian measures (or simply denying most people access to healthcare). The USA is no exception to this.
Regarding the current debate that is raging that is merely political thunder and lightning, where both parties involved are using scare tactics and lies (by omission or outright) to drum up support not for their policy but for their power. As Fyrr points out repeatedly the USA does already have the dreaded 'socialist healthcare' that the republican party is railing against. The 30 or more percent of the population who does not have healthcare insurance simply gets shunted into the emergency room. The proponents for a change are right, though, to say that this practice is both wastefull and a disgrace for one of the richest countries in the world.

A significant part of the more ideologically motivated citizens of the USA (or at least the ones who tended to vote republican more than democrat) belief that capitalism is the best, and in fact only, way to bring down cost, under the assumption that a company strives to bring down cost.
They are wrong on two accounts. The first being of course that a company is not in the business to minimise cost but to maximise profit. Frequently the two coincide but they are not identical. There are many situations where there is no economical force to drive down cost and both the healthcare industry as well as healthcare insurance happen to have several of those characteristics.
The second reason why they are wrong is that healthcare is not a 'rational' commodity. In the aftermath of the great banking fraud of early 21st century (some) economists have come to realise that the core building block of their theories, the rational consumer, is far less common than they assumed, but it has always been realised by all but the most fanatical free-market prophets, that when it comes to their health people are not rational at all. Simply put, people can not put a value on their life and health the way they can on a car of tv. The result of this is that there is no downwards pressure on the price of healthcare, other than the ability to actually pay for it. If slavery were legal people would sell themselves to be healed (or more likely for a loved one to be healed).

This combined means that a purely capitalist approach to healthcare is not a state many people would care to live in. Those who argue so vehemently that government should not be involved in healthcare at all have not thought clearly about the consequences should their protests be heard and implemented. At the same time, politicians are not good at saying 'no', and in the case of healthcare if you want the costs to go down (or be under control) at some points you have to tell patients and votes that there is a cost that society is capable of bearing, and that even though that cost is neither economical nor rational, there very much is an upper limit.

One approach, which is not ideal anymore than any other one, is to split the healthcare into two parts. The basic healthcare is available for anybody and is paid for through taxes. It cuts healthcare insurance and other overhead, and given that the government pays for it they also get to set incomes and such. And of course, given that this is a public service it is required that policies, budgets and results are reported and discussed annually so that the voters do have information to decide if the government is spending their money reasonably. What exactly is covered is for politicians to decide (or if that is preferable panels of experts who advise the politicians). It is not ideal as people are notorious for being able to simultaneously over- and underestimate risks, but hopefully the extremes cancel each other out and you end up with a policy that satisfies nobody but is acceptable to most.
Anything not covered by this state mandated basic healthcare is up to the individual to take healthcare insurance for. This evens the power balance between insurance company and customer some, as the insurance is for things that people actually could say 'I do not need this' about, thus introducing a weak downward pressure on prices for healthcare insurance and through that on the cost of the actual care.

Disadvantages of such a system are obvious too. There is a need for a different type of burocracy. Instead of insurance companies dictating hospitals you have a government agency doing the same. In theory the later are more accountable, but in practice government agencies are every bit as slippery as nationwide companies and multinationals. Because people dislike to pay for things until they actually need them there will be a strong pressure on the system to underfund the public part of the healthcare system, leading to the kind of troubles you have in e.g. the UK or Netherlands where people have to wait weeks or months for an appointment for what should be routine treatment. (Belgium and Germany spend more money on healthcare and manage to avoid this issue to a large extend). And of course by limiting salaries you ensure, especially in a greed motivated capitalist society, that the best and brightest do end up in the private sector where they can demand income far in excess of what other doctors earn doing the same job in state funded hospitals. Finally, tying the whole thing to politicians is far from idea. It is needed because at the moment it is the only way to introduce the concept of public accountability into the system, but it also links people's opinion on healthcare to other political issues like the economy and security. You could have a separate organisation with its own elections but experience in the EC suggests that people find it very hard to get worked up over more than one election every few years. Elections for other than the national government tend to be marginal affairs generally.


Eri

No country in the world has managed to find a solution to bring down the cost of healthcare unless it is by draconian measures (or simply denying most people access to healthcare).How do all these countries spend less than half of what we spend, yet provide equal or better care, and boast a healthier population?

I gave the example of Japan, but there are many other real world examples.

You are incorrectly assuming that all the money we pump into the drug, health care, and insurance industries actually goes toward patient care. It doesn't.

How do all these countries spend less than half of what we spend, yet provide equal or better care, and boast a healthier population?

I gave the example of Japan, but there are many other real world examples.

You are incorrectly assuming that all the money we pump into the drug, health care, and insurance industries actually goes toward patient care. It doesn't.

Actually, I am not assuming that all that money goes to the actual healthcare at all. It is one of the reasons to cut insurance companies out of basic healthcare. Given that everybody receives it one way or another all the insurance company does is draining money out of the system that could have gone to better care or reasonable salaries for the people doing the actual work.

Also, my point was that while other countries spend less per capita on healthcare and in some cases manage to have better care, every country faces a steadily rising cost of their chosen system. It just happens that the mishmash of systems that the USA adopted is particularly inefficient, but even Japan sees the costs of its healthcare rise steadily every year, regardless of the economic situation. As I said, it is not a rational market and will not respond the way other markets do.


Eri

Also, my point was that while other countries spend less per capita on healthcare and in some cases manage to have better care, every country faces a steadily rising cost of their chosen system.My own insurance premium just went up 40% in the past year. Employer-sponsored health coverage has gone up about 120% in the past ten years.

That's not steady inflation, it's a crisis.

And in the WTF-are-you-smoking department, comes this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/25/MNKQ19D32V.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1GOP cites cost to seniors in health care reform

Recognizing the powerful force older Americans have become in the efforts to overhaul the nation's heath care system, Republicans have announced a Seniors' Health Bill of Rights, a set of principles the party says are important to ensure that any health care reform "be fully paid for, but not funded on the backs of our nation's senior citizens."So the "Republicans" now want to prevent socialism, by making sure we don't reduce socialism.

I really wonder whether any of their followers actually think any more, or whether they just mindlessly respond to the scare tactic du jour as long as it's against the black guy.

Here's we go with some Right-wing nuts getting ready to be violent:
http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99474/The_reckless_Right_courts_violence

David Frum

A man bearing a sidearm appears outside President Obama's Aug. 11 town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., under a sign proclaiming, "It is time to water the tree of liberty."

That phrase of course references a famous statement of Thomas Jefferson's, from a 1787 letter: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

Earlier that same day, another man is arrested inside the school building in which the president will speak. Police found a loaded handgun in his parked car.

At an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona last week, police were called after one attendee dropped a gun.

Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient: the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters.
Fun article with all kinds of examples of public right-wing-nuts talking about murdering their opposition.

Fun article with all kinds of examples of public right-wing-nuts talking about murdering their opposition.Add to that Obama's recent visit to Arizona, where conservatives "protested" his health care plan by bringing loaded semiautomatic weapons.

But it's hardly unexpected. I think everyone, Obama especially, knew that an assassination attempt is going to be likely once he takes office, on account of his race.

And that's what many of these protests are really about: a call to arms to all the (mostly Southern) bigots who want to kill the black guy. Let's hope they're exposed, and that they bring down all their buddies in the process. They're becoming a distraction that is preventing things from getting done.

Oh and did you know that Fox News is on pace for its best year ever (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_en_tv/us_ap_on_tv_hot_fox) in ratings? It pays to hate, especially when someone else does your dirty work and you sit back and collect the check.

More stuff about recission (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455.html?hpid=topnews). Apparently lawyers are loving this because juries usually side with the plaintiffs.

In the past 18 months, California's five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, according to company documents released in court.

"This is probably the most egregious of examples of health insurers using their power and their resources to deny benefits to people who are most in need of care," said Gerald Kominski, associate director of the Center for Health Policy Research at the University of California at Los Angeles. "It's really a horrendous activity on the part of the insurers."

For Teresa Dietrich, it was fibroids. The Northern California real estate agent was left to pay $19,000 after Blue Cross said she did not disclose a diagnosis of the benign uterine tumors. But Dietrich said the doctor who had written "fibroids" on her medical record never mentioned his suspicions to her. The bills destroyed her credit and cost her her home -- and, in a comically cruel twist, the surgery proved the doctor was wrong.

"They said I had a condition I didn't even have," Dietrich said. "And they canceled me."

Setting the pros and cons of Universal Health Care aside, the cost of health care in the U.S. is outrageous.

I don't pretend to know all the reasons for the high costs, but when Canadian drugs cost significantly less than their identical American counterpart, someone's raking in the money somewhere.

y 83 year-old Dad went through major heart surgery last year, with serious complications due to a rare reaction to the blood thinner used. He was in the cardiac unit for 6 weeks. Any estimate what this would have cost in the U.S.?

The total cost to him was less than $100 -- cost of the ambulance that eventually took him from the cardiac unit to a recovery center (which also cost him nothing). Heh... it cost me more than $100 for hospital parking when I visited.

I have a queasy feeling that my Dad would be dead right now if he had lived in the U.S. He wouldn't have been able to afford health insurance, nor the cost and complications from the surgery.

Last week he and I were up at his cottage clearing bush and cutting firewood. He loves his chainsaw, brush cutter, wood chipper and splitter.

Setting the pros and cons of Universal Health Care aside, the cost of health care in the U.S. is outrageous.

Yeah, but you guys are socialists without any freedom. :)

Yup... the lack of freedom is onerous.

Heck, there we were clearing out some trees and this government guy from the Municipality shows up to hand us fines for breaking environmental laws, tree removal without a permit and contravention of 2 federal laws, 3 provinicial laws and 12 local by-laws.

No wait. It was just our old hunting buddy Tim dropping by for a beer and a chat. :)

My 83 year-old Dad went through major heart surgery last year,

{snip}

I have a queasy feeling that my Dad would be dead right now if he had lived in the U.S. He wouldn't have been able to afford health insurance, nor the cost and complications from the surgery.

We already have universal health care for people over 65, but ok.

We already have universal health care for people over 65, but ok.

Cool... I didn't know that. So my Dad would have gotten similar treatment and costs in the U.S.? Who would have made the decision that heart surgery was necessary? For my Dad, it was his decision. I was with him when his physician went through all the possibilities and risks of surgery. The physician stated that surgery was advisable, but not critical. In the end, my Dad decided to take the risk of surgery versus a much restricted life-style.

With Universal Health Care if you're over 65, what's the great hurdle extending that to everyone? Surely the biggest expenses are health costs for the elderly.

He would have been fine here. Unfortunately, I have a similar story involving my grandfather with slightly different conditions. He had cronic kidney problems starting around 65 ish. Stints helped him out, but, after so long when the stints started to calcify, and were being removed. After that, he kind of went downhill. Developed staph infections and all kinds of crazy stuff. Eventually, his health completely deteriorated, I remember thinking and telling my family, just let him go. Don't get me wrong, I loved my grandfather, but, what happened next wasn't what he would have wanted.

They kept him alive another 6 months in complete pain and suffering after that. He was a proud individual, service member for 30 years through near the end of ww2 to vietnam. So, for what it was worth, Thicket, your father would have been just fine in our system.

Cool... I didn't know that. So my Dad would have gotten similar treatment and costs in the U.S.?
Probably better treatment at a higher cost. Surgery survival rates, on average, are the highest in America than anywhere else, although I don't know about heart surgery in particular.

Cost is a bit more complicated. If he was truly poor and paid his medicare taxes for long enough back when he was working, it'd be very cheap. But there are copays and premiums for medicare users depending on the individual's circumstances, but the vast majority of all medicare spending comes out of taxation.

Who would have made the decision that heart surgery was necessary? For my Dad, it was his decision. I was with him when his physician went through all the possibilities and risks of surgery. The physician stated that surgery was advisable, but not critical. In the end, my Dad decided to take the risk of surgery versus a much restricted life-style.
Your dad or his doctor would've. Medicare sets prices, but they set them higher than other coutry's government plans to avoid rationing. But in general medicare pays out claims without much fuss (a big problem with the system is that a lot of the claims it pays out are fraudulent, in fact.)

With Universal Health Care if you're over 65, what's the great hurdle extending that to everyone? Surely the biggest expenses are health costs for the elderly.
Cost.

The cost of healthcare, yes is indeed atrocious. It is hard to say what is indeed causing it, or what is true. I would tend to side with many different variables all adding into the equation. Some blame our socialized medicines like medicare and medicaid. Some blame not paying for their health care, so they charge for the next person to come along. Some blame Emtala. Some blame the FDA and cosmetics act for their 20 year policy and developement procedures, for taking so long to enact curing treatments, as well as the monopoly the pharmaceuticals and equipment rights driving up prices.

Like say for example there is a cure for aids, which for many there is. A small portion of the populace in naturally immune to the HIV virus. By using their bone marrow, some other stuff I don't know much about. But, it cures HIV by killing the virus and granting the immunity gained from the developed antibodies. While there should still be more testing on it, you are looking at 10-15 years until it hits the market. Probably, another 10 after that for it to become common place.

Then, you also get the prescription medications being overprescribed. Currently, the number one drug of choice is prescription drug abuse. It has surpassed even cannabis usage. Also, you receive drug resistent forms of bacterias and stuff where they develope antibodies to medications causing further complications.

Other fun stuff, the malpractice suits, the administrative cost issues. It all adds up. Fairly large sweeping reform needs to be done. Of all the above subjects, plus quite a few not mentioned. Yes, one way to do that is just go for the full monty with socialized medicine all around. Everyone is equal no discrimination based off things like your class standing.

It could remove many things, like the health care costs off employers that like to whine about. It can remove workman's compensation injuries health care costs, not to be confused with short term/long term disability payouts, dismemberments things like that. You can roll veterans health care into it, as well as, medicaid/medicare. Also, while curbing the overall cost and charging slightly higher on taxes.

When I get time, will post on private health care benefits, and hopefully allittle less massive.

With Universal Health Care if you're over 65, what's the great hurdle extending that to everyone? Surely the biggest expenses are health costs for the elderly.Stop polluting this thread with all that common sense and logical reasoning.

Everyone in the Real America knows that while offering universal health care to those age 65+ is truly the American Way and must be defended with violence, extending that coverage to those even one day younger would turn this country into a tyrannical Communist regime, which must be defended against with violence.

Cost.What costs more, Medicare or EMTALA?

What costs more, Medicare or EMTALA?

Are you serious?

Are you serious?Are you unable to answer the question, or just afraid of what the answer would be?

Are you unable to answer the question, or just afraid of what the answer would be?

Not quite. It was an idiotic question.

EMTALA is extremely expensive, but not even anywhere close to the cost of medicare.

EMTALA is extremely expensive, but not even anywhere close to the cost of medicare.
Well, the cost is paid by all of us with health insurance. The hospitals push it onto those who can pay, or at least haven't yet gone bankrupt yet due to hospital care.

I just heard an ER doctor today saying about 50-70% of the people he say were there on non-emergencies using the law that they can't be turned away. Those are people that could probably see a PA or NP for a fraction of the cost of using the ER, if they had health coverage.

Well, the cost is paid by all of us with health insurance. The hospitals push it onto those who can pay, or at least haven't yet gone bankrupt yet due to hospital care.

It takes quite a lefty to think that realizing that regulations pass costs onto consumers is a profound discovery.

EMTALA is extremely expensive, but not even anywhere close to the cost of medicare.So let me get this straight, you think treating someone through EMTALA is cheaper than treating someone through Medicare?

You really think that?

So let me get this straight, you think treating someone through EMTALA is cheaper than treating someone through Medicare?

You really think that?
We were talking the cost of the total program, not the cost of providing care to someone via ER regulations or government ran insurance. And the annual cost of medicare is far higher than the annual cost of EMTALA compliance. But ok.

With Universal Health Care if you're over 65, what's the great hurdle extending that to everyone? Surely the biggest expenses are health costs for the elderly.
Cost
What costs more, Medicare or EMTALA?
(In so many words) Medicare

We were talking the cost of the total program, not the cost of providing care to someone via ER regulations or government ran insurance.The issue is not whether we should put old fat people on the EMTALA plan, but rather whether we should extend Medicare to young fat people.

So I'll ask you again, perhaps with greater precision: is it cheaper to treat the same patient under the EMTALA plan, or under Medicare?

So I'll ask you again, perhaps with greater precision: is it cheaper to treat the same patient under the EMTALA plan, or under Medicare?
The answer is still EMTALA. According to Obama -not me- the extra cost to the insured due to the uninsured is $1,000 a year. Even assuming that 100% of uncompensated care is due to EMTALA (which it isn't) and that all uncompensated care costs could be elimated with a robust public plan (which it can't), it's still cheaper than medicare. Not to count that it's still cheaper than coverage in countries with single payer.

The next issue is, who's paying the cost? 5% of the population pays 60% of all tax revenue, so if you're taking money out of general taxation, the cost to most people for programs is extremely low even if the program itself is expensive. With EMTALA, the costs passed onto middle class or rich people don't vary nearly as much.

To me it looks like this Kamion versus everybody else (and I am in no way implying those numbers represent the real distribution of con versus pro on this topic) is the national discussion in a nutshell. One unshakable conviction pitted against another equally unshakable conviction.
The actual discussion though is smoke and mirrors, loud noises and hot air (not on this forum, but the national one from what little I can see of it across the pond).

The issues as I see them are
1- all the power currently rests with the insurance companies. As always with absolute power it corrupts.
2- The proposed universal healthcare already exists, only it is probably the most inefficient way in the world to deliver it (by clogging up emergency rooms)
3- There are too many additional costs in the system that make the cost of healthcare needlessly high. (Anybody else would be accused of running a protection racket if they 'force' you to buy protection from them against themselves. In all other economic sectors the government is fighting monopolies).

Two changes that have nothing to do with healthcare would go a long way to ease the upward pressure of costs. First of all punitive damages need to go, as do the no cure no pay contracts. Both encourage people into a kind of lawsuit lottery and force potential recipients of such lawsuits to pay into very expensive insurance policies. Obviously malpractice should still be prosecutable, but the victim should be paid the actual costs and nothing more. The punishment is between practicioner and government (or whatever board maintains professional standards on its behalf).
Second, the ability of insurance companies to terminate coverage at a whim should be curtailed. Severely. I know they are not supposed to be able to do so to begin with, but everybody knows that there is that pesky difference between theory and practice. Right now health care insurance is uncomfortably similar to an insurance against moose bites that is not valid if you travel above 55degrees lattitude. You can pay for it as long as it is unlikely you need it. Once you start claiming money the company will start looking increasingly long and hard to get rid of you on a technicality, and once they manage to do so you have a prior condition and not much hope on finding new healthcare insurance. At least not at outrageous prices.

A solution that could possibly be stomached by republicans, if they were not encouraged to oppose anything Obama does because he is a democrat, would be to put the emergency back into emtala coverage while at the same time creating a minimal healthcare coverage that -all- insurance companies must accept -any- applicant from, at a maximum annual fee. That fee and what exactly is covered is decided regularly by representatives of health care providers, insurance companies and politicians in open debate. For more extensive coverage people can take an additional insurance.
What still needs to be solved is the problem of people who are essentially uninsurable due to them having a chronic illness or incurable condition, but that is another fight.

Of course a newspaper article over here said, in so many words, that Obama already lost the battle this summer. He let control slip as lobbyists for the insurance companies created one hysterical story after another, all aimed at creating fear and outrage and (most importantly) causing uncertainty in democratic representatives that Obama needed to push his reforms through. The insurance companies themselves forced their own employees to claim they were against the reforms on social networks like hyves and facebook (presumably voluntarily, but done in such a way that their employer could check if and what they had said, so it was only voluntary if they did not care about losing their job). The article concluded that a lot of the blame was laying with the more traditional news media that increasingly were unable to report and interpret facts and were reduced to repeating controversies and fanning the flames of them. It also put some of the blame with Obama and his staff for being complacent and not recognising the lobying tactics employed against them. The article ended with the conclusion that this summer had once again shown that the president might be nominally head of the state but that the political was created and controlled by a few big companies that had the money and expertise to outmanouvre the politicians.


Eri

To me it looks like this Kamion versus everybody else (and I am in no way implying those numbers represent the real distribution of con versus pro on this topic) is the national discussion in a nutshell. One unshakable conviction pitted against another equally unshakable conviction.


This should be fun.

Explain how that is even remotely close to what happened in this thread.

The answer is still EMTALA. According to Obama -not me- the extra cost to the insured due to the uninsured is $1,000 a year. Even assuming that 100% of uncompensated care is due to EMTALA (which it isn't) and that all uncompensated care costs could be elimated with a robust public plan (which it can't), it's still cheaper than medicare. Not to count that it's still cheaper than coverage in countries with single payer.
Wait, there's a whole lot of uninsured that don't get any care at all, either because they're healthy or they just don't. So is that cost spread averaged out between them all? Or just the ones that actually get some kind of care?

That would be spread out over all the uninsured, whether they actually obtain health care or not. I have worked for companies that provided no health/dental benefits, so, I did not actually purchase health insurance on my own. There was almost no reason to. In fact it is getting more popular to not provide health care plans to employees nowadays. I also pay health insurance companies for coverage on occassion, just because.

Consider this, At work, you are covered by workman's compensation. When driving, I am covered by my car insurance in case of severe injuries, or I would fall under some one elses automobile policy, if, not my fault, or I cover them with uninsured driver coverage. Most people have similar plans. For serious injuries, fall under Emtala. Long term/permanent disabilities would fall under Medicare.

That is plenty of coverage for random stuff, but, does very little for developement of cancer or other expensive illnesses, with the exception of medicare. But, plenty for severe trauma, or this stuff will kill you now kinds of things.

Quote"Two changes that have nothing to do with healthcare would go a long way to ease the upward pressure of costs. First of all punitive damages need to go, as do the no cure no pay contracts. Both encourage people into a kind of lawsuit lottery and force potential recipients of such lawsuits to pay into very expensive insurance policies. Obviously malpractice should still be prosecutable, but the victim should be paid the actual costs and nothing more."

You summed up alot of the debate pretty well. This is a course of disagreement, and much debate about. I could see a cap in punitive damages. An example of this would be say a welder by trade, goes in for a common place in profession, a biopsy on respiratory functions. But, a mistake is made, they amputate both arms. Said welder is now out of work, permanently disabled. I could see payment of expected salary until retirement age in this case, but, no more than that. In examples like this, many are suing for 10 million. Although, usually with suits like that if you notice, they set the price high to settle out of court for a decent sum.

quote"Second, the ability of insurance companies to terminate coverage at a whim should be curtailed. Severely. I know they are not supposed to be able to do so to begin with, but everybody knows that there is that pesky difference between theory and practice. Right now health care insurance is uncomfortably similar to an insurance against moose bites that is not valid if you travel above 55degrees lattitude."

This is common place in insurance and I agree needs to go. Companies would sell life insurance to soldiers, and insert a war clause. If you die in a war, we will not pay. You could imagine what would happen next. They do the same in house insurance with tornadoes here in Tennessee. You gotta buy a tornado clause. Hurricane clauses in Florida. Earthquakes and volcanoes in California. Flood insurance pretty much everywhere.

It is a bit ridiculous at the various amounts of things, from not wearing a seatbelt, so, we will not pay the damage of a vehicle. Although, I will admit, personal injuries from no seat belt they have a point.

The answer is still EMTALA.So you really think that walking into an ER and getting treatment is cheaper than getting the same treatment through government-mandated Medicare rates?

I'm asking twice because I want to make sure you really are subscribing to such a stupid position, one that shows that you have never looked at an ER bill.

If that's true, why don't we just abolish all forms of health insurance, and have EVERYONE get ALL their treatment at the ER? I mean, you're saying it's the cheapest way to go, right?

The article ended with the conclusion that this summer had once again shown that the president might be nominally head of the state but that the political was created and controlled by a few big companies that had the money and expertise to outmanouvre the politicians.Quite true. Although you have to give him some credit, his speech yesterday was a decent shot back.

This should be fun.

Explain how that is even remotely close to what happened in this thread.

I came to this conclusion because basically nobody budged even a fraction of an inch (milimeter for those not decimal system challenged ;)) in 8 pages of firing pretty much the same arguments at each other. Opinions are presented as facts, facts are dismissed as opinions.


Eri

Quite true. Although you have to give him some credit, his speech yesterday was a decent shot back.

yes, but the one part of his initial plans that actually could have made a difference to the power of insurance companies has been quietly declared dead and buried, and as such those companies have won the victory they were seeking in their campaign of terror and disinformation. Any change now will be more window dressing than fundamental and will not significantly affect the power and income of insurance companies, health care providers and specialists.



ERi

It's amazing, I think Eri knows more about the US health care reform than most Americans do.

So you really think that walking into an ER and getting treatment is cheaper than getting the same treatment through government-mandated Medicare rates?

I'm asking twice because I want to make sure you really are subscribing to such a stupid position, one that shows that you have never looked at an ER bill.
I see a common trend with you, Tuda. You ask a question, you get an answer, and you get unhappy when the answer doesn't answer a question you didn't ask.

If that's what you wanted to ask, why didn't you just save these forum's servers the trouble and just ask that in the first place?

If the question is, "Are there cases where insuring people with public funds would be cheaper to society than keeping them uninsured," the answer would definitely be yes. But that's not what we were discussing. Your second question was, "Is it cheaper to keep people uninsured or put them on a public plan," the answer is it'd be cheaper to keep them uninsured.

If that's true, why don't we just abolish all forms of health insurance, and have EVERYONE get ALL their treatment at the ER? I mean, you're saying it's the cheapest way to go, right?
1) I don't even support EMTALA
2) It's not the cheapest way to go (there are more than 2 options, btw.)

I was merely pointing out that you're incorrect in your belief that using public funds to buy insurance for the uninsured is greater than the costs of EMTALA.

Would it be partially self financing? Of course, there are cases where it'd save money. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. As a whole; it'd (surprise) cost money.

I came to this conclusion because basically nobody budged even a fraction of an inch (milimeter for those not decimal system challenged ;)) in 8 pages of firing pretty much the same arguments at each other. Opinions are presented as facts, facts are dismissed as opinions.

What fact did I dismiss as an opinion?

If the question is, "Are there cases where insuring people with public funds would be cheaper to society than keeping them uninsured," the answer would definitely be yes.So you agree, cost is a factor IN FAVOR of a Medicare-like public plan as opposed to EMTALA, for currently uninsured people.

That it would be cheaper for us, as a whole, if every uninsured person today used a Medicare-like public plan as opposed to using the EMTALA public plan.

THAT is the point.

yes, but the one part of his initial plans that actually could have made a difference to the power of insurance companies has been quietly declared deadHe did discuss additional regulations on insurance companies refusing people with preexisting conditions and rescinding policies, as well as a competing public insurance plan. We'll see how it really plays out (if at all), but that's at least some check on the insurance companies' power.

That it would be cheaper for us, as a whole, if every uninsured person today used a Medicare-like public plan as opposed to using the EMTALA public plan.

--

If the question is, "Are there cases where insuring people with public funds would be cheaper to society than keeping them uninsured," the answer would definitely be yes. But that's not what we were discussing. Your second question was, "Is it cheaper to keep people uninsured or put them on a public plan," the answer is it'd be cheaper to keep them uninsured.
I was merely pointing out that you're incorrect in your belief that using public funds to buy insurance for the uninsured is greater than the costs of EMTALA.

Would it be partially self financing? Of course, there are cases where it'd save money. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. As a whole; it'd (surprise) cost money.

quote"It's amazing, I think Eri knows more about the US health care reform than most Americans do."

Eri has kind of struck me as an individual with a brain that uses it. Alot of countries have income and investments in the US or based off the US, they are quite interested in what we are doing, as what we do effects them, however blatant or subtle. Plus, from an outsiders view, us squabbling amongst ourselves could be viewed as funny.

quote"The article ended with the conclusion that this summer had once again shown that the president might be nominally head of the state but that the political was created and controlled by a few big companies that had the money and expertise to outmanouvre the politicians"

This was one of my dissents as to the health care plan I wrote somewhere on this forum. It does little to nothing to curbing rising costs but, we subsidize insurance companies, much like how we subsidize companies like Sallie Mae with FFEL. The costs keep rising. I did get through reading an interesting report on the uninsured. The interesting thing is the uninsured tend to be in better physical health, I am guessing someone looked at the cost they use for health care and decided here is a good way to make money, or reduce the cost of health care insurance slightly for everyone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32766566/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy

What fact did I dismiss as an opinion?

I am not sure if it was in this discussion or somewhere else, but I do recall you denying that other developed countries had healthcare of a similar level of quality as the USA for half the cost.
Also, you state as fact that universal healthcare would be more expensive than the emtala program. This is opinion as nobody actually knows what a program like Obama proposes would really cost. It may end up more expensive, but at least Japan and several European countries do show that it does not have to.


Eri
(p.s. I am not picking on you here, just providing the examples you asked for. Tuda and other reform supporters in this discussion have their own fixed opinions. So do I no doubt).

quote"It's amazing, I think Eri knows more about the US health care reform than most Americans do."

Eri has kind of struck me as an individual with a brain that uses it. Alot of countries have income and investments in the US or based off the US, they are quite interested in what we are doing, as what we do effects them, however blatant or subtle. Plus, from an outsiders view, us squabbling amongst ourselves could be viewed as funny.



Not funny no. Bewildering mostly. Not to mention that from an outsider point of view the very concept of universal healthcare that the republicans are railing against so vehemently (to the point of outrageous lies and threatening with violence) already exists and has in fact (if I remember correctly) been introduced by their great champion Ronald Reagan. After all, that is exactly what emtala is! It is essentially free healthcare for every American citizen (and anybody who can claim even the most tenuous link to being an American).
The problem is not universal healthcare but to get its funding on a more transparent and sustainable footing. A single system (mind, this does not mean a single insurance, but a single set laws and healthcare programs that are designed together and set up to achieve what political, economical and social healthcare goals the society feels need to be reached) instead of a loose collection of partial programs and regulations that serve more to obfuscate where the money goes than to provide comprehensive healthcare.


Eri

I am not sure if it was in this discussion or somewhere else, but I do recall you denying that other developed countries had healthcare of a similar level of quality as the USA for half the cost.

So it's your opiniont hat I dismiss facts opinions? How ironic.

Here are the relevant facts to what you've said that I've been saying for years.

Lefties often (and wrongly) quote health statistics to explain how well health care is. Health =/= health care. Health care only explains a fraction of health. Americans fall far behind in other areas that explain health, such as diet, exercise, and dying unnatural deaths (ie fatal car accidents and murder.)

The US has worse preventive care than most EU countries, but has better success rates for most surgeries and better survival rates for most cancers and other complicated diseases. The US is responsible for an extraordinarily large portion of medical innovation.

Put simply, if you're born in Europe, you'll be less likely to need a major surgery. But if you need a major surgery and money/access isn't an issue, you (in most cases) would want to be in the US.

I truly doubt you can find me a making a declarative statement about which system is "better" because different systems are better for different things. If you want declarative statements backed up by irrelevant facts or no facts, listen to the lefties on the forum, Michael Moore, or the talking heads on Fox News.

Also, you state as fact that universal healthcare would be more expensive than the emtala program. This is opinion as nobody actually knows what a program like Obama proposes would really cost. It may end up more expensive, but at least Japan and several European countries do show that it does not have to.
You really fail at reading comprehension. Tuda, not Kamion, was the one who didn't use a single number. I quoted Obama's estimate for the cost of the insured, for example. But anyways.

In 2004, total uncompensated was $40 billion. There isn't as accurate a study for 2008, but the best estimates I can find put it at $56 billion. The average cost to insure a person in Japan (one of the cheapest 1st world systems) is about $2,400. There would need to be fewer than 23 million uninsured Americans for it to be cheaper to insure the uninsured people with Japanese health care.

There are far more than 23 million people who are uninsured in America. Even if Obama can match Japans cost, it'd still cost more to insure them.

Of course there are caveats which we could discuss all day. I could write 10 pages picking it apart. But in a country with over 40 million uninsured and < $60 billion in uncompensated care, the numbers simply don't add up no matter how you slice it.

In 2004, total uncompensated was $40 billion. There isn't as accurate a study for 2008, but the best estimates I can find put it at $56 billion. The average cost to insure a person in Japan (one of the cheapest 1st world systems) is about $2,400. There would need to be fewer than 23 million uninsured Americans for it to be cheaper to insure the uninsured people with Japanese health care.

There are far more than 23 million people who are uninsured in America. Even if Obama can match Japans cost, it'd still cost more to insure them.


I believe the assumption is that once peope are actually insured they will need to use the emergency room less, thus shifting part of the funding from that program to the new insurance. Whether or not that will happen, and by how much, that is everybody's guess. If it does not happen at all then you end up with the deficit you expect. If on the other hand the majority of the consults happen at the cheapest level that can handle them (doctor's assistent and general practicioners) then it actually is likely to end up cheaper than the current system.
If nothing changes, it probably would be most cost efficient for individual americans to entirely dump their health care insurance and rely entirely on the emergency room for anything. It will take more time, but they can not turn away anybody and can never cancel their 'coverage', nor limit their access to treatment. Of course follow up care is a bit of a problem, but those people who need that are also the ones most likely under the current system to see their insurance cancelled due to technicalities or preexisting conditions.
And yes, if more people would do that the entire system would quickly implode as an increasingly small fraction of the population has to pay for the healthcare of everybody else through their premiums. The Swiss tried that when they reformed their health care system and the result was not pretty. But at least it would force something, anything, to be done. (and wouldn't those same insurance companies that this summer fought tooth and nail -against- reforms be found clamouring at the doors of the white house to create a mandatory healthcare insurance for everybody if that were to happen.)


Eri

quote"Not funny no. Bewildering mostly. Not to mention that from an outsider point of view the very concept of universal healthcare that the republicans are railing against so vehemently (to the point of outrageous lies and threatening with violence) already exists and has in fact (if I remember correctly) been introduced by their great champion Ronald Reagan"

Ya, we are retarded at times. It goes back to early McCarthism. The rest of your post highlights many of the problems in US laws, codes, and etc. We often do not phase out particular bills, legislature, and general stuff properly, so, what we get is a mish mash of legalities creating to many complexities.

Quote"But in a country with over 40 million uninsured and < $60 billion in uncompensated care, the numbers simply don't add up no matter how you slice it."

That is the funny thing about the cost of the uninsured. So, many different studies adding up to completely different costs. At those numbers, the cost of the uninsured would be around $1500 each. With the fine they are trying to impose on the uninsured, would be $2500 for not purchasing health insurance. While I will admit, that number would cover that cost, as well as those who do not pay the fine. I have no clue as to what the public option of insurance will cost, just the fine, so, I will assume it will be above $2500. That is a pretty healthy profit margin for people who aren't really particularly sick, just getting a few acute treatments here and there. It does little to reduce the costs of health care.

That is the funny thing about the cost of the uninsured. So, many different studies adding up to completely different costs.Because, as Kamion apparently doesn't realize, there are different costs depending on who's paying.

If you walk into an ER as an uninsured patient, you will get charged full retail cost, which is often several times more than the real cost an insurance company would pay, and can be an order of magnitude higher than what Medicare would pay. All for the exact same treatment.

So if I wanted to make it look like a big number (as the health care industry normally would), I would sum up all the full retail costs.

But the reality is, if the treatment were actually covered by Medicare, we'd be paying a tiny fraction of that big number.

And the reality is, any sane public health care plan will be far cheaper than a public plan that turns the ER into a primary care facility for the uninsured.

nt

And you came to that conclusion how exactly?Because I've seen the bills with my own eyes (my insurance company lists both the retail rate and the negotiated rate)?

Because I've seen it happen to other people, who didn't have insurance?

If you really think that everyone pays the same rate, you are living in a fantasy land. One ER visit can end up costing more than an entire surgery paid for by Medicare.

If you really think that everyone pays the same rate, you are living in a fantasy land. One ER visit can end up costing more than an entire surgery paid for by Medicare.

Can you show me a single post I've made on this forum where I have said that everyone gets charged the same?

Can you show me a single post I've made on this forum where I have said that everyone gets charged the same?[QUOTE=Kamion]In 2004, total uncompensated was $40 billion. There isn't as accurate a study for 2008, but the best estimates I can find put it at $56 billion. The average cost to insure a person in Japan (one of the cheapest 1st world systems) is about $2,400. There would need to be fewer than 23 million uninsured Americans for it to be cheaper to insure the uninsured people with Japanese health care.[QUOTE]You are assuming that if we were to cover all those services, we would pay retail prices.

We won't. Insurance companies don't, Medicare doesn't, and basically no one does except for the unlucky middle class who can't get coverage and have assets that can't be protected through bankruptcy.

Slash that "total uncompensated" by a factor of, say, 5 or 10, and you'll have the real world prices Medicare would pay, if all those services were covered by Medicare.

In 2004, total uncompensated was $40 billion. There isn't as accurate a study for 2008, but the best estimates I can find put it at $56 billion. The average cost to insure a person in Japan (one of the cheapest 1st world systems) is about $2,400. There would need to be fewer than 23 million uninsured Americans for it to be cheaper to insure the uninsured people with Japanese health care.

You are assuming that if we were to cover all those services, we would pay retail prices.

Where in there is that assumption?

Insurance Company Must Pay $10 Million For Revoking Policy Of Teen With HIV (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html)

By Murray Waas / 09-17-09 09:56 AM

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."

That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.

The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country. And it comes as progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for health care reforms, such as a public insurance option, that reflect wariness about the private insurance industry's motives.

ore... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html)

And the conservatives want these criminals to have total responsibility for providing our health care.

This is just one reason why government needs to step in and provide health care for the nation.

And in the meantime, the executives of these health insurance companies should be sent to prison.

If I had a nickel for every moment of "Republican" hypocrisy, I could probably pay off the national debt they created.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/12/national/w204137S32.DTL&tsp=1RNC health insurance plan covers abortions

(11-12) 22:20 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortions for its employees, an option Republicans strongly oppose in health overhaul legislation that Democrats are trying to push through Congress.

The GOP platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language. All House Republicans, except one, voted for an amendment imposing restrictions of coverage for abortions in the health care bill that passed the House last Saturday. Inclusion of the abortion restrictions prompted an angry backlash from liberal House Democrats, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.

The memo said the RNC received a phone call from a reporter on Wednesday asking whether the RNC's health care policy, through Cigna, covered elective abortions for employees. On Thursday, Politico.com published a report citing two sales agents for Cigna who said the RNC's policy covered elective abortion.

The Cigna employees said the RNC didn't choose to opt out of abortion coverage when given the opportunity, Politico.com reported.Hilarious. Especially since they have no real alternative to the House health plan, and are using the public funding for abortion thing as a red herring to stir up the Christian nutjobs.

Why do we pay this ass-hats?
Health insurers could bypass some key reforms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111303160.html?hpid=topnews)Nobody wants to spend a lot of time, energy -- and taxpayer money -- and end up back where they started. But that's what could happen with one of the principal elements of health reform, the so-called exchange or gateway.

Legislators are designing this new insurance marketplace to protect consumers from many of the pitfalls and inequities in the current system. But even as they focus on the details of how the marketplace will work, senators have indicated that they would allow insurers to continue operating outside it, much as the health insurance lobby has sought.

Why do we pay this ass-hats?
Health insurers could bypass some key reforms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111303160.html?hpid=topnews)

That was always the plan. Nationalizing all health insurance regulation was never seriously on the table, only the few things the article points out.

Health insurance regulation is done on both a federal and state level, but most of the regulation of coverage is done on a state level.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/09/MNLR1B1B6M.DTLSenate deal scraps public health insurance plan

Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to replace the controversial government-run insurance plan in their version of health care legislation, hoping to remove one of the last major roadblocks preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.We might as well cut out the middlemen and replace Congressmen with industry executives.

This health bill is looking less and less like a national health care program and more and more like an insurance industry stimulus plan.

What I heard today was that they were looking to expand medicare to those 55+ and put others on the same plan that congress uses. To me, that sounds like public health care still, most people are too dumb to realize that so it'll probably fly.

Ok, here's a more detailed description: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/12/does_giving_opm_health-care_co.html

What I heard today was that they were looking to expand medicare to those 55+ and put others on the same plan that congress uses.Well it's still up in the air, but except for the Medicare thing (which may or not go in, and leaves out most people anyway), it's all going to go back in the hands of the insurance companies. A government agency might negotiate rates, but it's still not a government plan.

The big difference this time is that everyone will be forced to become an insurance industry customer. Nice stimulus plan there.

I wonder what excuse Obama is going to give to not veto this one, after he stood in front of Congress, and the entire nation, and lectured for ten minutes about the importance of an independent government-run plan to compete with private industry.To me, that sounds like public health care still, most people are too dumb to realize that so it'll probably fly.Funny. To me, it sounds like an insurance industry giveaway cloaked as a pseudo-government option.

I figured the liberal half of the Senate might try to get the bulk of the bill passed first, then set aside the controversial issues for piecemeal additions later when they're more palatable, but this sounds like capitulation.

Medicare is a public plan. If you're a private insurer you can play but you have to obey the rules they set out. Germany has wedded their health care system with highly regulated private insurance, the people seem to like it, at least the ones on Bill Moyer's Journal.

I seem to recall in his campaigning Obama, or perhaps Clinton, talked about extending the current federal government scheme to cover the uninsured.

Frankly, I think it's all poop compared to single payer. I just hope whatever poop they deliver doesn't stink too much.

Medicare is a public plan.They're not talking about extending Medicare to everyone though, just starting it from age 55. That still leaves out most people.

If that's a stepping stone to extending Medicare to everyone, and making that the national health plan, then fine, but it sounds to me like more of a token measure to save face.

Time will tell.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulSenate Dems may change health care compromise

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are considering changing a proposed expansion of Medicare to address complaints from doctors and hospitals and defray costs for consumers, officials said Thursday, two days after party leaders hailed it as part of a breakthrough for health care.

Under the plan, uninsured individuals ages 55 to 64 could purchase coverage under Medicare. The expansion is part of a compromise for dropping a full-blown national government-run insurance plan from the legislation that Democrats and the White House hope to push through the Senate by Christmas.

The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association have both criticized the proposed Medicare expansion since it was announced Tuesday night, saying the program pays health care providers less than private insurance companies, and warning against increasing the number of patients.

"We are trying to find a solution," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in the Capitol, saying that the groups had raised legitimate concerns.

Separately, officials said there were discussions about the possibility of defraying the expense of Medicare coverage for uninsured individuals under 65. Under some estimates, the cost could be as high as $7,600 annually — more than $600 a month — until subsidies become available in 2014.

Current Medicare beneficiaries pay $96.40 per month, with the government picking up the rest of the premium cost.So after Congress conceded to industry demands, you'll be able to buy Medicare at 55, if you're willing to pay a 600% premium over those who get it at age 65.

And they're calling this a national health care plan?

Hai guyz, I has national health care planz, sendz meez each oneses hundred dollarz ze month, az taxes to big bear govemintz, rip up medicarebearz alltogether, remove your current health care plan paymintz, except instead of send meez one hundred dollaz, you send more like 50 dollaz as I roll over medicare payments and Emtala into one plan. Tell yous employers to taketh the amount they spendeth upon thine health cares incentives for employeez, cut it down to 25% is what theyz will be paying for nationalized health care, take theyz workman's compensation paymintz by 50 percentages, I alzo increases theyz revenue. Then, with yo car insurance planzes, remove your injury policy for you and otherz and I haz also saved youz money on youses car insurance without switching to Geico! For those who wouldn't not like deez planz of reforma nacional del cuidado médico as my bros in the south call national health care reform, well, when you break a leg, go in get a cast for 10 bucks, with some pain meds included, and get a lollipop. Zen, everybodiez is covered.

At 65 Medicare is virtually free. I think my parents were paying $100 a month for it. Private insurance, I was paying over $600 a month for. And it was going up about 20-30% a year. So yeah, I would expect the government isn't going to be able to subsidize it for everyone.

Palamin, dude... got no clue what you just said. :p

So yeah, I would expect the government isn't going to be able to subsidize it for everyone.That is kind of the point of a national plan.

An expansion of Medicare is meaningless if it just goes under the name Medicare but is really worse than private insurance.

That is kind of the point of a national plan.

As I understood it the idea was a government run plan, formerly proposed, would not be subsidized by taxes, except for the poor, but would be competing with private insurance. With it's large pool of subscribers it would be able to dictate reimbursements and such to hospitals and doctors and without having to pay stockholders and so on be very very competitive with private insurance.

I never heard it was going to be subsidized on the scale that Medicare is.

In my health care wet-dream, I'd like to see us do it like they do in France. But that's extremely unlikely.

Something to the extent of what I said, nationalized health care for everyone, no private health insurance altogether. For this service, I would roll over the taxes for medicare, Emtala, partial workman's compesation, so the average person would send in another 50-75 dollars a month in taxes. Dropping the injury portion of car insurance, and thus saving you money there. But, you would still be stuck with liabilities in case you get the bright idea to drive drunk, doing donuts on your neighbors lawn and then running down a bunch of school children, I don't know what you guys like to do. You would still be liable for the property damage, disabilities, and stuff, not their health care though, cause that would be covered.

I would also require your employers to drop their health care plans for employees and charge them about 20% of what they are paying now for health care for their employees for health care taxes, while reducing by 50% the amount they have to pay for workman's compensation, benefits for those disabled short and long term disabilities in the line of work would apply, health care would be covered in a nationalized system. So, I would increase their revenues and profit margins.

I would use all that money, somewhere around 400 billion or so a year(plus it will go down to around 200 billion a year!), to pay for a nationalized health care system, drive down prices on health care costs and stuff. Should someone break a leg, they will get a free lollipop, because they do not give out lollipops anymore, or that lollipop would be around 10,000 dollars or so, because the previous 9,999 people didn't pay for their lollipops.

I never heard it was going to be subsidized on the scale that Medicare is.It wasn't, according to the House bill. But it would have been available to everyone, not just to a narrow age range.

The fact that the public option was so scary to the insurance industry, and that the current second-generation watered down Medicare quasi-expansion isn't, should clue you in as to which would have actually been useful for the consumer and which isn't going to be at all.

Ok, thanks for the translation, Palamin. I think I'd absolve employers of any responsibility for health care at all. Health care would be paid for by individual taxes. Then they couldn't complain that we can't compete globally because we force our employers to pay for health care costs and they could turn around and pay employees better.

Quote"Then they couldn't complain that we can't compete globally because we force our employers to pay for health care cost"

Oh, don't worry, they will find something else to whine about, like pensions. Then after that, how they should be able to dump toxic waste into peoples drinking water. After literally giving companies a trillion dollars tax free just because, they will whine that they need all the money in the world, which would of course be worthless, they would own and control everything, but, they would need something else, preferably bright and shiny.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/11/health.care.benefit.caps/index.htmlWashington (CNN) -- After hearing concerns from patient advocates, the White House on Friday said it is looking to close a loophole in the Senate health care bill that would allow caps on annual insurance benefits.

The loophole in the Senate bill reversed a previous version of the plan that would have prevented insurance companies from establishing such limits, according to three Democratic aides who spoke to CNN earlier Friday.

The trade-off had drawn criticism from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network, a patient advocacy group.

Stephen Finan, the group's senior policy director, worried that cancer patients and other seriously ill patients, who often require expensive procedures, would face major financial losses if annual coverage benefits are capped too low.So now they've slipped in, behind closed doors, a benefit limit cap to the bill (which they removed before, as a matter of principle).

I wouldn't be surprised to see extra loopholes pop up that allow rescission, denial of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, price gouging, and all the same old crap that insurance companies are now doing.

I stand by my earlier statement, this is looking less and less like a national health plan and more and more like a $1 trillion giveaway to the insurance industry.

If Obama doesn't veto this crap, he'll be a hypocrite, and a liar. Especially after that whole speech about his own mother fighting with insurance companies as she was dying from cancer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulMedicare buy-in plan runs into Senate resistance

WASHINGTON – A plan to let people as young as 55 buy into Medicare, heralded as a breakthrough in the Senate's health care debate, ran into resistance Sunday from lawmakers who can make or break Democrats' efforts to reshape the nation's health insurance system.

The early Medicare buy-in was part of a compromise reached last week when Senate Democrats dropped the idea of setting up a federal health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Many Democrats who had favored that public option only grudgingly let it go, in return embracing the Medicare proposal as an appealing way to help people 55 to 64 — a group often vulnerable to losing employer-based health insurance when it's needed the most.So now even the crappy Medicare extension is probably not going to make it in, thanks to the insurance industry owning Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaulOne other proposal to emerge from last week's negotiations appeared headed for oblivion.

The Congressional Budget Office said a requirement for insurance companies to spend 90 cents of every premium dollar on medical care would transform the industry into "an essentially governmental program" that would more properly belong in the federal budget. Yep, can't have insurance companies spending most of their money on actual health care, instead of lining their pockets! That would be patently un-American.

What, exactly, is left in this "national health plan"? Free taxpayer money to insurance companies since people will be forced to buy their stuff, as opposed to going with the existing public option?

It's depressing. I'm just trying to pre-adjust to the impending disappointment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulSen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., led the effort to lift a long-standing ban on the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Obama favored the plan as a senator, but the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, and the White House appeared anxious not to jeopardize a monthslong alliance with drug makers who have been helpful in trying to pass the overhaul.Can't have real competition for drugs either; it's patently un-American to not rape American consumers financially.

I wish I could remember the pharmaceuticals thing from Mexico, bought in Mexico thing. I think it went people would get their prescriptions, they would go to Mexico, Mexico would overcharge slightly, but, cheaper than US drugs, pharmaceutical companies didn't like that one much, same drug, same company, asprin to pesos to dollar ratios....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaulYep, can't have insurance companies spending most of their money on actual health care, instead of lining their pockets! That would be patently un-American.

What, exactly, is left in this "national health plan"? Free taxpayer money to insurance companies since people will be forced to buy their stuff, as opposed to going with the existing public option?

I guess this is what happens if you change your governmental departments into wholly owned subdivisions of multinationals.


Eri

I guess this is what happens if you change your governmental departments into wholly owned subdivisions of multinationals.Maybe we should cut out the costly middlemen, and put the CEOs in charge directly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulUpbeat Obama says Senate near health care passage

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama prodded Senate Democrats to overcome the last, lingering disputes blocking agreement on a national health care overhaul Tuesday, declaring they were "on the precipice" of enacting historic legislation that has eluded administrations and lawmakers for decades.

The bill includes "all the criteria that I laid out" in a speech to a joint session of Congress earlier in the year, he said. "It is deficit-neutral. It bends the cost curve. It covers 30 million Americans who don't have health insurance, and it has extraordinary insurance reforms in there to make sure that we're preventing abuse."Is the president suffering from selective amnesia?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.htmlAs soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.I think he conveniently forgot about a few "criteria" that he had originally mentioned. The industry CEOs must have vetoed them.

VPR Transcript: Dean On Health Care: "Kill The Senate Bill" (http://vpr.net/news_detail/86681/)

Tuesday, 12/15/09
Bob Kinzel - Montpelier, VT

(Host) Former Governor Howard Dean is back at the center of the health care reform debate in Washington.

Dean says the time has come for Senate Democratic leaders to kill the current health care reform bill because it's no longer worth supporting.

Dean is upset that the Democrats appear willing to weaken a public option provision in the bill in order to secure the vote of Independent Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman.

VPR's Bob Kinzel reports.

(Kinzel) Last week, in an effort to help break a logjam over whether or not to include a public option in the bill, Dean dusted off one of his plans from his 2004 presidential race. He suggested to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that people between the ages of 55 and 65 be given the opportunity to buy into Medicare.

The compromise initially gained a fair amount of support, but over the weekend, Senator Lieberman said he would oppose it. Lieberman's opposition is important because the Democrats need 60 votes to block a Republican filibuster of the bill and they need Lieberman's support.

Dean, speaking from an airport in Puerto Rico, said the Democrats' apparent decision to appease Lieberman has left them with a bill that's not worth supporting. He thinks they should start over using a parliamentary procedure usually reserved for budget bills, known as reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of senators to pass.

(Dean) "This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. And, honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

[More... (http://vpr.net/news_detail/86681/)]

Is the president suffering from selective amnesia?


No, but he is hoping (and betting his future career) that Joe Public does.
Considering the evidence of terminal moronity in Joe Public throughout the last several decades it is not much of a risk he is taking.


Eri

Well, I hope they do something. It would take a really horrible bill to make the status quo look good. There isn't likely to be a democratic quorum after the elections so if they can't do anything now, they certainly won't be able to then.

(Dean) "This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. And, honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."There must be a catch, otherwise they would've done it that way a long time ago.

The whole requirement of a supermajority in the Senate is absurd anyway, especially when you really only have two Senators and the public shifts the respective weight of their votes only slightly each election.

Well, I hope they do something. It would take a really horrible bill to make the status quo look good. There isn't likely to be a democratic quorum after the elections so if they can't do anything now, they certainly won't be able to then.They will do something. They will pass this crap, and we'll hear speeches about how it's an historic moment in U.S. history, and the insurance companies will quietly laugh their way to the bank while the rest of us go deeper into debt, paying more and getting less.

They will do something. They will pass this crap, and we'll hear speeches about how it's an historic moment in U.S. history, and the insurance companies will quietly laugh their way to the bank while the rest of us go deeper into debt, paying more and getting less.

I can think of one way to very quickly increase popular support for a real health care insurance reform:
ake it so that companies are no longer allowed to pay health care for their employees. Then tax companies for however much they are currently paying for insurance and pay out that money to the employees. Do the same with medicare.
Once people have to pay the hugely inflated insurance premiums out of their own pocket (even if the money for that has been given to them by the government) they are going to be very much in support of lowering the rates by whatever means possible. If the cost are hidden people are going to assume the service is free and any change is going to cost them money.

And the charming thing is that you can convince the voters that you are doing three things simultaneously: lower the operating cost for the companies by relieving them of the obligation to pay insurance for they employees (just gloss over the taxation), the system is by definition budget neutral as you only change who is paying the insurance premium, and you give people a hefty sum of money (just gloss over the fact that it can only be spent on health care insurance). Just hire a couple of spindoctors to create your own lies to drown out those created by the opposition (and since all three are hobby horses of them it should be easy to make them appear as hypocritical and out to protect the big business instead of joe average ...)


Eri

A lot of Americans are (or are opting not to) pay for their own insurance nowadays as they lose their jobs. :\ However, right now the government is partly subsidizing it, which it wasn't when I was self-employeed and paying over $600 a month just for myself!

Yeah, I agree, if folks had to pay for their own insurance, we'd have health care reform over night. However, it's fantasy-time again, it'll never happen. Change is nearly impossible in this country, IMHO.

Once people have to pay the hugely inflated insurance premiums out of their own pocket (even if the money for that has been given to them by the government) they are going to be very much in support of lowering the rates by whatever means possible.Your proposal ignores the reality of the situation: the people who are actually paying all the money into the system are also the ones who use it the least. The way health care operates is that a whole lot of young, healthy, productive workers are paying for the care of old, sick, and unemployed people.

If you dismantle the employer health care benefits, and leave everyone to fend for themselves, all the 20 year old males putting in all the money are going to go off and buy really cheap insurance for themselves, and premiums for the 50+ crowd will climb into the stratosphere.

If a 50-year-old thinks their $500-a-month individual premium is high now, just wait until the subsidies from 20-year-old employees stop and it becomes $5,000 a month.

This is why health care cannot, by definition, be run in a capitalist manner, and must be socialist.

Ironically, we have decent socialist health care systems right now in the U.S.: the employer-sponsored plans of the largest companies. All we need to do is expand that notion to cover the nation. We definitely shouldn't get rid of it without another socialist alternative.

Your proposal ignores the reality of the situation: the people who are actually paying all the money into the system are also the ones who use it the least. The way health care operates is that a whole lot of young, healthy, productive workers are paying for the care of old, sick, and unemployed people.

If you dismantle the employer health care benefits, and leave everyone to fend for themselves, all the 20 year old males putting in all the money are going to go off and buy really cheap insurance for themselves, and premiums for the 50+ crowd will climb into the stratosphere.

If a 50-year-old thinks their $500-a-month individual premium is high now, just wait until the subsidies from 20-year-old employees stop and it becomes $5,000 a month.

This is why health care cannot, by definition, be run in a capitalist manner, and must be socialist.

Ironically, we have decent socialist health care systems right now in the U.S.: the employer-sponsored plans of the largest companies. All we need to do is expand that notion to cover the nation. We definitely shouldn't get rid of it without another socialist alternative.

You really did not read what I wrote, did you?


Eri

You really did not read what I wrote, did you?Are you going to force people to buy the exact same policy they would have gotten from the employer?

If not, what's going to happen is exactly what I said.

This is depressing... shows how powerful the drug industry is. Sounds like they pretty much have control of things in washington.

American Marketplace (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=marketplace/pm/2009/12/16/marketplace_cast1_20091216_64&starttime=00:16:25.0&endtime=00:18:52.900) report.

It makes me think we won't ever have health care in this country until the political system is overhauled first.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaulHoldout Sen. Nelson rejects abortion compromise

WASHINGTON – A moderate Democrat whose vote could be crucial said Thursday an attempted Senate compromise on abortion is unsatisfactory, raising doubts about whether the chamber can pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul by Christmas.

"As it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient," Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key holdout on the health care bill, said in a statement after first making his concerns known to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

According to Casey, the proposed compromise included a two-year increase, from $10,000 to $11,000, in an adoption tax credit; $250 million over 10 years in new funding to help pregnant teens and others with alternatives to abortion and stronger "conscience clause" language to give protections to health care providers who don't want to perform abortions. Casey declined to go into additional detail, but according to anti-abortion groups and others briefed on the language, another element would allow individuals opposed to abortion to seek assurances that none of their premium dollars would pay for that service.So now we have a religious zealot Congressman using this bill as leverage for extortion, trying to force his fanatical misogynistic agenda down the nation's throat.

This bill should be scrapped. And that asshole voted out of office.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34633137/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Why am I not suprised. So Tinsi, how would the immigration services of Noway apply to just an average American, because the more I hear about Norway the more I wanna move there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34633137/ns/health-infectious_diseases/Use fewer drugs, and more common sense?

What bizarre notions!

Ya, I know, been critical of the over prescriptions of medications and the abuse that leads to it. I just think it is funny everytime I turn around those Norweigens are doing something in a good direction. It is like they are leading the world in fun.

Use fewer drugs, and more common sense?

What bizarre notions!
Really?

If you get TB, you are gonna pass on the antibiotics?

Really? You will?

If you have a surgery, you are gonna pass on the antibiotics, not to mention the pain meds? Really, are you serious?




Well, the first question was hypothetical, of course. If you have TB, you will be forced by law to take the meds. You can take them at the hospital, or in jail, whichever you prefer. But, if that were not the case, you would pass on the meds?

Ya, I know, been critical of the over prescriptions of medications and the abuse that leads to it. I just think it is funny everytime I turn around those Norweigens are doing something in a good direction. It is like they are leading the world in fun.

ost of the antibiotic resistant micros we have now were first made in the 80s.

When AIDs patients were given huge doses of antibiotics, and they had no immune systems to kill off what the ABs did not. Creating the superbugs.

We continue to make them the same way. Is it ethical to withhold antibiotics from AIDs patients because they will make more AB resistant bugs in the future? They are gonna die from AIDs anyway, right?

"Fewer" does not mean "none". Reserving antibiotics for times when they're important--so that they remain effective when they're needed--seems like a smart course of action to me.

Libertarians don't get shades of grey; I learned that on this board some time ago.

And I never take medications just because a doctor says so, without my own independent evaluation. More and more doctors are resembling used car salesmen, hawking the latest unnecessary drug they've been bribed to sell.

"Fewer" does not mean "none". Reserving antibiotics for times when they're important--so that they remain effective when they're needed--seems like a smart course of action to me.

And what times are those?
Are you saying that does not happen now?

...hawking the latest unnecessary drug they've been bribed to sell.

You have not qualified yourself yet to determine what is necessary and unnecessary.

You have not qualified yourself yet to determine what is necessary and unnecessary.When I get prescribed drugs that do nothing useful, then I do my own research, and come up with a working solution that doesn't involve drugs, I have proven that I am qualified.

Far more qualified than the doctor who pushed the drugs because that's how he makes money.

Doctors are no different from auto mechanics; they just read the manual and follow instructions. You don't need much skill to do that.

Is it ethical to withhold antibiotics from AIDs patients because they will make more AB resistant bugs in the future? They are gonna die from AIDs anyway, right?That depends.

You have to weigh the increase in the quality of life versus the danger to society.

If they're going to die in a week anyway and they're sitting in a hospital bed hooked up to tubes, it would be unethical to give them antibiotics to prolong their suffering.

If they have decades to live and are just suffering a curable infection, then you probably should give antibiotics, but take extra precautions to prevent resistance.

Right now, doctors don't consider these practical things. They only consider (a) how much money they'll make and (b) whether they'll get sued.

And (a) and (b) almost always steer them towards giving drugs, whether or not it's a good idea, as a practical matter.

That's the nonsense we need to stop.

Far more qualified than the doctor who pushed the drugs because that's how he makes money.


Doctors don't make money from drugs.

You certainly are qualified to determine what therapies that you personally use. You are only proving yourself less and less qualified to make any decisions about anyone else, let alone systemic decisions.

The more and more you write on the topic, the more you show you have no idea or knowledge of what you are talking about.

Doctors don't make money from drugs.Really?

If doctors didn't prescribe drugs, how many do you still think would be in business?

That's all most doctors do nowadays. Prescribe drugs. I don't see them often, but whenever I do, I always end up walking away with a prescription.

They write the order or prescription for the drugs.

But they don't sell them.

That is mostly against the law.

An MD doing that is going to lose his or her license.

The only exceptions that I can think of are on-site clinic injections. Say Botox, Vitamin K, Vitamin B, Lovenox, etc. I don't know enough about how clinics MDs work to know how they do that. But I will say, that I have never in my whole life had a doc sell me a medication, never ever(got some free stuff, of course).

Well, unless you mean PharmDs. Your pharmacists are gonna all be docs now. Do you mean them?

They write the order or prescription for the drugs.

But they don't sell them.


Fyyr, what he means is that doctors get a kickback from the pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their drugs.

I have absolutely no idea how severe this problem is in the USA, but at least in the Netherlands it was big enough that government set up a list of approved medicines that insurance companies are required to cover. Anything not on the list they are allowed to but not required to pay for. That way if a pharmaceutical company wants their drugs on the list they have to convince a panel of experts that their product is better or has definite beneficial effect that other drugs do not have.


Eri

No, they don't.

That's against the law.
Any Doc who does that is gonna lose his or her license.

They can get a dinner if they sit through a Pharm sponsored slide show presentation perhaps. But that's it.
And the speaker can NOT be a Pharm employee. And there is NO quid pro quo to these presentations.

The presentations that I have attended were much more informative than the cost of the meal, I assure you.
And almost all of the docs who I have seen put on these presentations, will deviate to give their truthful experiences with the drugs, even when not in line with the sponsor Pharm rep.


If a doc is really taking kickbacks, that is entirely illegal. And most docs will do no such thing.
I would bet more cheat on their taxes. If they cheat on taxes, they can still keep their license.
Take a Pharm kickback, bu bye license.

They write the order or prescription for the drugs.

But they don't sell them.

That is mostly against the law.You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that doctors directly receive a direct cut of the profits.

But, the interests of doctors, and drug companies, are aligned, so that doctors have a great deal of self-interest in pushing the latest and not-so-greatest drug.

Generally, a visit to the doctor results in a prescription (or 2, or 3, or 10), plus a handful of free samples that they just happen to have lying around.

No doctor loses their license for doing this. In fact, they'd probably lose their license for not doing it. Or at least get sued.

Drug companies keep doctors in business. And have a big hand in the research that self-servingly promotes the drugs.

Not to mention, many of the best-selling drugs are unnecessary. You yourself have admitted that Lipitor, the best-selling drug in the United States last I checked, is mostly a scam.

Depends, some docs buy stocks in pharmaceuticals, then prescribe those pharms. Directly, no they do not engage in the kickbacks from Pharms. Pharms do scam the doctors quite frequently though, getting them to prescribe the new wonder drug of the day. Docs do not break out the biochemistry as much anymore, has alot to do with how swamped they are at times. The kickbacks have largely come from insurance companies from "not" finding things like cancer, heart conditions, insert expensive illness. That has been documented.

Problem is right now in the United States, Eri, is prescription medication abuse is the number one drug in the country right now. It has surpassed marijuana usage, which I think has been also surpassed by crystal methamphetimines, haven't seen the latest tallies between cannabis and crystal. I have friends that regularly check into their doctor/dentist for their Loritab prescription that docs/dentists seem to prescribe like candy, it gets popped like it.

It is not neccessarily related to the medical field, but, things like paxil, lithium, and ritalin are over prescribed as well, particularly in young active children.

Not to mention, many of the best-selling drugs are unnecessary. You yourself have admitted that Lipitor, the best-selling drug in the United States last I checked, is mostly a scam.

I did not say that it was a scam.

High LDLs are the root cause of only 8% of heart attacks(AMI).

If it were your heart, or your SO's heart, your dad's heart, your kids' hearts would you take the drug? Most people will take the cost of buying statins, over the chance of having a heart attack(and that is their choice not yours, mine, or Bill Maher's). Because no one knows if they are in the 8% group, or in the 92% group.

Which group are you in?

Depends, some docs buy stocks in pharmaceuticals, then prescribe those pharms.
That's just silly.

Directly, no they do not engage in the kickbacks from Pharms. Pharms do scam the doctors quite frequently though, getting them to prescribe the new wonder drug of the day.
You would be surprised at how skeptical docs are with new drugs that come out. Even old ones.

They usually require at least couple of double blind independent N=4000+ studies that have been run for years(decade) to even get them close to a prescribing position.

It is not neccessarily related to the medical field, but, things like paxil, lithium, and ritalin are over prescribed as well, particularly in young active children.

How do you know this?

Are you ADHD or BiPolar?
Do you have an ADHD or BiPolar kid?

That is just anecdotal infos.

Do you have any data to back up your claim?

Which group are you in?The group that eats a proper and diet and exercises.

But you go to a doctor these days with high cholesterol (due to being obese, having a crappy diet, and using the remote control as your daily exercise), and the first thing he'll do is push statins.

And he won't give you that 8% figure either. Bad marketing.

The first thing he or she will do is tell you to get more exercise, and lower your fat intake.

Exactly, how many doctors do you know?

Because it sure seems like you are just making things up.

The group that eats a proper and diet and exercises.

Seriously, which group are you in?

Are you in the group of people that high LDLs will cause a heart attack?
Or are you in the other group where your heart attack will come from something else?

Do you know which group you are in?

I don't. And neither does your doctor. But I bet your lawyer, or your family's lawyer would like to know if your doctor did not offer to prescribe a statin after you have a heart attack, and your doc knew you had high LDLs.

So, again, which group are you in?

Seriously, which group are you in?

Are you in the group of people that high LDLs will cause a heart attack?I am in the group that doesn't have high LDLs.

That does not matter for the question.

Which group are you in?

That does not matter for the question.It matters because your question is irrelevant.

No, it is very very relevant to this particular discussion.

Just because you don't accept the relevance, or know what the relevance is.


Which group are you in?

Answer the friggen question, smarty pants.

Are you in the 8% group. Or are you in the 92% group?

You are in either one or the other, which group are YOU in?

No, it is very very relevant to this particular discussion.What difference does it make what group you're in, if you don't have high LDL in the first place?

Kind of like debating what the best type 2 diabetes treatment is. You'll hear all sorts of expensive options from doctors, but rarely the most useful ones, like stop shoveling sugar down your throat 24/7, eating crap, and sitting your fat lazy ass on the sofa all day.

Even though my advice is practically a 100% proven method.

Because you don't know what group you are in, do you.

That's why its important.
You don't know, neither does your doctor.

And you can be a vegan, run 5 miles a day, have high HDLs and low LDLs, BMI of 18 and still have a heart attack.

I have had plenty of healthy people(patients) who have had heart attacks.

You don't KNOW which group you are in, Tudamorf.
That is the answer to the question.
And it is very very relevant.



And 8% is statistically significant if it is you or someone you love, if you or they are in that group.

quote"That's just silly."

Ya, legal not that I really care to much about it.

quote"How do you know this?

Are you ADHD or BiPolar?
Do you have an ADHD or BiPolar kid?

That is just anecdotal infos.

Do you have any data to back up your claim?"

I have this, but, no data on per capita ritalin kids. Growing up in the eighties it was very rare to have a kid on ritalin. From wikipedia on the subject,

quote"Production and prescription of methylphenidate rose significantly in the 1990s"

Considering ritalin was made around 1944 or so, after trials by 1954, it took about 40 years for it to really be prescribed regularly. For the creative kids, they took their ritalin mixed it with some caffeine pills and some other stuff to pretty much get high. Every time I turn around some kid is on ritalin just talking to friends. "wah, I couldn't cope with my child getting into cabinets all the time and banging some pots and pans" is fairly regular, typical kid stuff most of us got into when we were young without the need for ritalin. Then, the long term effects debate of using ritalin. Kids will often just grow out of their hyperactivity.

Also from Wikipedia, in 2004, 8000 cases, related to ritalin, in the United States the poison control centers reported drug abuse as well as suicide attempts combined, probably with some accidental overdoses in those numbers, but, those go into the common theme with prescription drug abuse.

from Wikipedia, 22.2 million prescriptions of Prozac were filled in 2007 quoted as the third most prescribed antidepressant. Pretty sure although I have found no data on the prescriptions, lithium should have really low numbers, around a million or so. Paxil came in 5th at 18.1 million in that year as well.

You don't KNOW which group you are in, Tudamorf.I'm not at risk.

Are you saying everyone NOT at risk should also be drugged up with the top money making drug?

You're proving my point. Thanks.

How do you know you are not at risk?

The majority of AMIs come from how the cardiac arteries on your heart are laid out.

And the size of your cardiac arteries and veins.
Your anatomy.


How big are your cardiac arteries, Tuda?
Do they curve, or do they zig zag, what do the branches look like?
Are the branches wide or narrow?


y point, Tuda, is that no one, including you, knows if you are in the 8% of the population who are going to have a heart attack because of high LDLs. You don't know.

Are you saying everyone NOT at risk should also be drugged up with the top money making drug?


There are two groups of people who have AMIs.

Those that are caused by high LDLs and those where the cause is something else.

No one knows which group they are in, until after they are cathed(after an AMI) or dead.

Are you saying that everyone at risk, in the high LDL group, should not take a statin, and just go ahead and have their heart attacks because you and Bill Maher thought it was a good idea?

You are more than welcome to make the decision for yourself. But from the context of this discussion, you appear to think that you are qualified to have an opinion on systemic use of these drugs. You are not qualified.

My point, Tuda, is that no one, including you, knows if you are in the 8% of the population who are going to have a heart attack because of high LDLs. You don't know.I know that if I don't have a high LDL level, I'm not going to have a heart attack because of high LDL, whether or not I am the type of person sensitive to high LDL.

LDL tests are very cheap and easy to do. And there are proven methods of lowering LDL that don't involve drugs.

Lowering LDL isn't necessarily going to solve anything. About half the people who have heart attacks have "normal" LDL. Problem is, the cheap ass cholesterol test they use on people doesn't give you enough information to make good decisions. It calculates LDL using a formula that breaks under certain conditions. And you don't know if the LDL is big, fluffy particles that have pretty much no effect on heart disease risk (Pattern A), or if it's small, dense particles that make you very high risk (Pattern B). You could have low LDL and if it's the small stuff, you could still have a heart attack but you will feel safe because you've been told a really dumbed down story about cholesterol.

Just lowering LDL is stupid for people but great for pharma companies. This is going to shake out to be the worst misapplication of science since they irradiated babies with normal sized thymus glands (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/chp9.html) because they thought they would choke (SIDS).

Before you swallow what your doctor prescribes, we suggest you read this article (http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/heart-disease/understanding-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/article/34cf5983f7a75210vgnvcm10000030281eac)

Just lowering LDL is stupid for people but great for pharma companies.And doctors, the puppets of those companies.

Bunch of bloody sheep! :p

I know that if I don't have a high LDL level, I'm not going to have a heart attack because of high LDL, whether or not I am the type of person sensitive to high LDL. But you don't know if you are 'sensitive' or not. Do you?

LDL tests are very cheap and easy to do. I suppose, they are about 350 to run.
Docs don't make any money from those either. Just like drugs.
Lab does.

I suppose, because $350 is relatively cheap compared to frikken dying.

And there are proven methods of lowering LDL that don't involve drugs. True.
And there are a LOT more people, than our 8% group, who do all of those things and still have high LDLs.

And none of them know if they are in the 'sensitive' group either.

Well, not until they have their first AMI.

As you said, the odds are, that you are in the other 92% group, where LDLs don't really matter in terms of having an AMI. Since you have low LDLs, what does that matter anyway. You are more prone to cost the system just as much, when you have your AMI due to genetics and poor vasculature shape and size.

You don't need statins, niacin, or ezetimibe, do you?
Still don't mean that you wont need a bypass someday, or cardiac cath, or have an AMI.

When you are having your chest cut open, have your tubes reconnected, you can say to yourself, "Well, at least I was healthy enough all these years with low LDLs." But in the end, when you discover that you were in the 92% group anyway, wouldn't that kinda be like realizing that you wasted all your energy, time, and money on something that was not true?

And doctors, the puppets of those companies.

How many doctors do you know personally, Tuda?

Since you have low LDLs, what does that matter anyway.That was my point.

All those fat lazy Americans with high LDLs, can have low LDLs, without drugs.

But doctors will always push the drugs first. I have seen it.

Compare heart disease statistics between American statin addicts and the Japanese and see for yourself how unnecessary those drugs are.

Incidentally, most insurance companies will let you do a basic exam including cholesterol test for <$100, sometimes free even. So you don't need to spend a lot to know whether you have high LDL.

All those fat lazy Americans with high LDLs, can have low LDLs, without drugs.
It wouldn't matter one bit. LDL cholesterol, as it is currently measured, is a worthless marker for heart disease risk. There's a whole bunch of countries out there that have much higher LDL than we do in the US and much lower rates of heart disease.

Stupid doctors, and their stupid patients, are acting like sheep and taking drugs to modify a false marker for heart disease. And it only helps a tiny subset of those people, men over the age of 65 who have already had a heart attack, yet they prescribe statins to women and other people based on an irrelevant blood test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvNyKnM8EA

Good quick explanation of the MONICA study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvNyKnM8EA

Good quick explanation of the MONICA study.Well, first, that's total cholesterol, and second, there's no control group, so the comparisons are pointless.

I agree, it's probably only a small variable among many others, but it's the only one that drug companies can make money off of.

And I'll also bet that you will find, among people similarly situated, that higher LDL/HDL ratio correlates with many health problems, simply because it also correlates with an unhealthy lifestyle (no exercise and eating junk food all day, i.e., the typical American's day).

It wouldn't matter one bit. LDL cholesterol, as it is currently measured, is a worthless marker for heart disease risk. There's a whole bunch of countries out there that have much higher LDL than we do in the US and much lower rates of heart disease.

Stupid doctors, and their stupid patients, are acting like sheep and taking drugs to modify a false marker for heart disease. And it only helps a tiny subset of those people, men over the age of 65 who have already had a heart attack, yet they prescribe statins to women and other people based on an irrelevant blood test.

This is plain and simply not true.

It is relevant in 8% of all American AMIs.

And you don't know if you in that group or not until you have one.

You may dismiss 8% as too small a percentage to matter to YOU. But it is not a false marker. And I can assure you that if you are in that group, or someone you love is in that group, that it does make a relevant difference.

I will also state that the group(whose exact percentage is unknown at this time) of those who are perfectly fit, with low LDLs, and high HDL, and still have an AMI is larger. It's the Jim Fixx scenario, and it happens much more than you realize. That's just genetics, and after you are born, you have no control over that.

Genetics is the largest indicator of AMI. And the largest group of those who have AMIs.

And different countries have different sets of people, with different genetics and morphologies.

Actually, high HDL is desirable. It's LDL (of the small variety) that is undesirable. And high triglycerides track nicely with small LDL.

True.

And easy mnemonic. H(DL) is Healthy. L(DL) is Less healthy.

It still is not a false marker for 8% of those who have heart attacks.
IIRC, smoking is 10% indicator for AMI.
You wouldn't tell a smoker to just keep smoking because the risk to increased heart attack is so low, would you?


Conversely though,
Physical exertion is a big indicator too. A huge number of people have heart attacks exercising.
Would you tell people to stop exercising?

And genetics is the LARGEST indicator for AMI. But we all know that anyone who suggests good genetics is a NAZI, right?

And genetics is the LARGEST indicator for AMI. But we all know that anyone who suggests good genetics is a NAZI, right?

I have no idea what people are saying about people who are saying something like that, but in my opinion it is pointless. Nobody can do anything about their genes, so it should not matter to health care nor to insurance. It is trying to 'do something' about other people's genes that would stray into eugenics territory.


Eri

I have no idea what people are saying about people who are saying something like that, but in my opinion it is pointless. Nobody can do anything about their genes, so it should not matter to health care nor to insurance. It is trying to 'do something' about other people's genes that would stray into eugenics territory.


Eri

Eugenics literally means good genes.
It has only been through systemic indoctrination that you believe it to mean extermination and death camps.

The opposite of good genetics, is bad genetics.
Are you really such an unthinking mindless sheep that because of what the Germans did in the 1940s, that you must now support bad genetics?

I'm not such a sheep. I don't support bad genetics, I don't think bad genetics is good just to avoid being called a NAZI.

Eugenics literally means good genes.
It has only been through systemic indoctrination that you believe it to mean extermination and death camps.

The opposite of good genetics, is bad genetics.
Are you really such an unthinking mindless sheep that because of what the Germans did in the 1940s, that you must now support bad genetics?

I'm not such a sheep. I don't support bad genetics, I don't think bad genetics is good just to avoid being called a NAZI.

...

...


Eri