Ray Jay wrote:In her tour she's talked about enjoying the exhaust fumes from motor cycles ... maybe she's overdosing.

Neal, how many aliases do you have?

Must be tiring.

Ricky, we don't really want Canadian health care. You like to compare the two and while our system is certainly broken, you should try comparing those who are insured with Canada. For those who are insured, we have better health care and we do not want to get worse coverage. Yes, the overall rate will improve, but MY care will suffer and frankly, I want the system fixed but not at my own health care expense.

Canadians have longer wait times to see specialists, Canadians often are sent to America for services they can't get in Canada, , they are often refused treatments that insured Americans are covered for. I can't understand why you think I really care about poor people when me and my family come first!

Here's the thing. If someone made a decision not to have insurance at the age of 24, then they decide to purchase insurance at the age of 44, they are taking advantage of the acturarial realities.
That is that from age 24 thru 44 or so we tend to have less use for medicine except for accidents.
As we age we use more health care.

Which is why insurance is cheaper for people in those ages.

Society seems to have made the moral decision that we don't want to simply leave people to die if they can't afford medical care. The only way that the freedom to not select paying or not for insurance is fair to all, is if the decision to not have insurance is made at a young age and is irrevocabale . (Or if there is a huge financial penalty due for not contributing to the plan for 20 years...)

Or, as your risk increases, so does your premium. Isn't that the point of insurance.

Society doesn't make decisions. Individuals do.

theodorelogan wrote:Society doesn't make decisions. Individuals do.

What?

I thought it took a village to raise a child? I suppose you expect the parents who brought the child into the world to do that?

I thought it was a collective responsibility to care for the old--not their own to prepare for old age. After all, why should anyone anticipate getting old?

What about college, huh? You mean to tell me you don't think I should be paying for your kids to go to college?

This is a moral outrage!

GMTom wrote:There you go with the both are the same but one is worse again, both are wrong, both are not equally wrong. Murder is worse than manslaughter. Why must you insist both have to be equal, how much clearer can I paint it for you? Both are guilty of doing similar wrongs. But RIGHT NOW (you can argue the Republicans were more guilty several years ago) the Democrats are telling the bigger lies,

I don't insist that they are equal, I just have the opinion that they are about the same. The 'death panels' thing was not the only lie being told by Republicans about the bill as it went through. There were all kinds of erroneous comparisons to foreign systems that had the dual faults of being wrong about those systems and that the proposals for the US were not to copy them.

Sure, right now (no need to shout, Tom), the Dems are the ones being caught telling porkies. But I thought we were looking at a broader picture - a couple of years ago the shoe was on the other foot, and that's what I thought you and I were both saying.

and the requirement to get insurance, that's some sort of answer? That was no fix, it addresses nothing but you are correct in it costing more, a tiny little thing like that, something that will do next to nothing to fix a huge problem will cost a lot of money, this tiny next to nothing "fix" is a big joke, one the Democrats are actually hailing as some sort of success that they are proud of?

My point was that for those who oppose federal compulsion, the healthcare act was not a 'minor change'. You yourself point out that there are major implications to cost. Again, that's not 'minor'. On the other hand, a lot of people who were not covered before will be, if the act remains in place. None of those are 'minor'.

You can clearly say that you don't like those changes, that you think they are bad, and make your partisan point about the Democrats hailing it a success (I don't think it is, but I think it's better than what you had before in terms of healthcare accessibility). But that doesn't give you a pass on claiming (incorrectly) that the Democrats or the President did nothing.

oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Because YOU think they are the same, even though I happen to think not, it doesn't matter? Because YOU think they are the same, then any who dare say anything different is making a "same thing, only worse" statement? Thanks for clearing that up, now we know how you think and can understand your (lack of) logic.

This is like saying murder is bad so we tell people not to murder, problem solved.

danivon wrote:The 'death panels' thing was not the only lie being told by Republicans about the bill as it went through. There were all kinds of erroneous comparisons to foreign systems that had the dual faults of being wrong about those systems and that the proposals for the US were not to copy them.

IPAB is essentially a "death panel." There is no judicial review, no appeal. Unelected bureaucrats will determine what a human life is worth. It puts the government firmly in control of rationing care.

As for Obamacare being compared to foreign systems, I don't believe anyone said it was the same as Canada's system or Britain's system. I think the comparisons were made to illustrate the dangers of socialistic medicine and its impact on treatment. Europeans and Canadians may well not like our system--that's fine, they don't "have" to live with it.

After Obama loses, Obamacare will be yesterday's news. Even if he wins, lots of luck getting funding through a GOP House and Senate.

from Steve's quotation:

The liberals' plan is that when Medicare does crash, the market for medical services will be so distorted and so government-driven that it will be too late for any alternative except socialized medicine.

See, this is remarkable. Medicare IS socialized medicine. And yet your author and apparently you strongly insist it isn't...
Why? Because Medicare is popular...
Medicare costs are out of control but then so are all US health care costs... Medicare is hit a little faster because the group it serves use more medical services.
There have to be two fundamental fixes costs have to be brought in line and/or revenues have to increase.
The great puzzlement I have is the disconnect that Americans have between understanding that Medicare is socialized medicine; perhaps only difeering in being socialized medicine that has foregone most of the cost control methods used by socialized systems around the world.(At the behest of the various lobby groups protecting their profit margins.)
Now that was the point I made about looking at comparable systems around the world and how they control medical costs... As usual Steve discounts them because "it can't possibly work in America..."
Again the point is Tom and Steve, that when the same medical procedures and the same pharmaceuticals that you use in the SU are 40% more costly than they are in France or 30% more costly then they are in Canada you've got a system that isn't working. (There is no cost control. )
Obama has entered into some measures that will incrementally bring in cost controls but he can validly be criticized for not going far enough.

Now Tom. Do Americans want Medicare when they reach 55? Would they want Medicare when they reach 18? I think so. And most polls show Americans would prefer socialized medicine.
(The myths about quality we have we've debated elsewhere. But you've never been one to actual absorb information that contradicts your preformed opinion ...have you?)

theo

Or, as your risk increases, so does your premium. Isn't that the point of insurance.

Society doesn't make decisions. Individuals do.

I think that was the point I made about the enormous buyin that should be forced when someone decides to buy insurance at a later date in life. right now, private insurance protects their pools from bad risks by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. In a system where there is one insurance pool that you either join or stay out of ...they penalty for someone joining late in life, with pre-existing conditions would have to be enormous wouldn't it Theo?
What if the person couldn't afford that penalty? Would you be comfortable denying them life saving treatment?
without that ultimate penalty, younger people would often to game the actuarial pool, counting on the forgiving nature of the public when they run into actual need that upsets their actuarial gamble.

And that's a huge moral problem. Forcing people to participate allows a society to avoid having to make that call.
And, by the way. Society does so make decisions. That's what democratic government is about. That's what the establishment of laws, including property laws are all about. Many laws are already compulsory because society has decided they must be obeyed by all. Why? Because universal adherence means some can't act with impunity whilst others pay for their actions...
Same thing with compulsory medical insurance (or taxes, or programs).

Tom, I couldn't let your comment go without addressing dirtectly a couple of your dearly held misconceptions.
In Canada:
Waiting timesAlthough life threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some specialist services needed are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next available appointment in their local chosen facility.
The median wait time in Canada to see a specialist physician is a little over a month with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[65]
The median wait time for non-urgent diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans[66] is about half a month with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[65]
The median wait time for elective surgery is a month with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[65]
Prescription drug costsAlthough Canadians get the services of their physicians and hospitals included, they do have to meet the cost of prescription drugs themselves. Many take out insurance for this but this is not compulsory. Some people do meet some expenses themselves out of pocket.
34.3% of adults reported having no out of pocket costs for prescription drug costs. 96.2% of adults pay less than 5% of their disposable income on prescription drugs.
Overall satisfaction rate85.2% of Canadians reported that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the way health care services are provided in their country and an even higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisfied" or "very satisfied").

In the US:
A poll released in February 2008, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive, indicated that Americans are currently divided in their opinions of socialized medicine, and this split correlates strongly with their political party affiliation.[126] Two-thirds of those polled said they understood the term "socialized medicine" very well or somewhat well.[citation needed] When offered descriptions of what such a system could mean, strong majorities believed that it means "the government makes sure everyone has health insurance" (79%) and "the government pays most of the cost of health care" (73%). One-third (32%) felt that socialized medicine is a system where "the government tells doctors what to do".[citation needed] The poll showed "striking differences" by party affiliation. Among Republicans polled, 70% said that socialized medicine would be worse than the current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) said that a socialized medical system would be better than the current system. Independents were more evenly split, with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse.[citation needed] According to Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system." Physicians' opinions have become more favorable toward "socialized medicine".[citation needed]
A 2008 survey of doctors, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.[127

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

But you bring some facts to the table and i'll digest them.
I get it that you seem happy with your insurnace but I also remmebr you complaining about a recent medical procedure's cost....
Be that as it may, it wasn't my intent to get back into a comparison of health care outcomes. I originally made the point about comparing how health care costs are controlled in socialized medicine because - without a doubt - health care costs are enormous in the US when compared to any socialized system. And without actually curbing health care costs, fewer and fewer Americans will be able to afford decent health insurance OR altenratively fund their own care to a high quality. It will be unaffordable.

Doctor Fate wrote:IPAB is essentially a "death panel." There is no judicial review, no appeal. Unelected bureaucrats will determine what a human life is worth. It puts the government firmly in control of rationing care.

Like I say, you need to beef up your Human Rights law then.

Mind you, is it making individual decisions on claims? Is it's process transparent? Does it use clinical evidence as well as financial? All these are important considerations to whether it's the same as what insurance companies do.

As for Obamacare being compared to foreign systems, I don't believe anyone said it was the same as Canada's system or Britain's system. I think the comparisons were made to illustrate the dangers of socialistic medicine and its impact on treatment.

Right. So it wasn't that people said it was the same, it was just that they said if you go that way this is how awful it will be. At the very least it's a strong implication of equivalence.

GMTom wrote:oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Because YOU think they are the same, even though I happen to think not, it doesn't matter? Because YOU think they are the same, then any who dare say anything different is making a "same thing, only worse" statement? Thanks for clearing that up, now we know how you think and can understand your (lack of) logic.

It's no different to your position - you are making your own assertion and claims. we disagree. I'm saying what I think, and so are you. As for 'logic', I'll take no lessons from you.

But why are you ragging on me? You attack me even when I said I agreed with you?

Ricky, my recent cost "problem" was if I was NOT insured, my wife's appendectomy would have cost us several thousand dollars, (I don't recall exactly but it was over 10K) it cost us $250.00 that's it.
MRI, ER visit, 1 day stay, blood work, surgery, etc
No complaints here!

However, if we had no insurance it would kill us!
I agree our system is broken, but I also am not willing to accept less care than I currently get, screw the overall average, what does it do for ME? You mentioned those wait times in Canada, no such waits here. You guys are happy with sub-par service, you don't know any better, we do. How many Medical tourists does Canada get? Gee, the US is 4th, and our costs are sky high! We have a crappy system but superior service to those who have insurance and those with insurance (you know, those people who have jobs and pay taxes and run the country) they are not willing to have inferior services in order to have a better overall average that takes better care of the poor and lazy.
I have never waited for more than a few days at most for any specialist. Now, you want to throw uninsured or medicare/medicaid patients into the mix, the times grow to those you see in Canada! That system you seem to think we all like so much is not liked so much at all. But people see it as a given and don't want anything taken away, doesn't mean they like it, they just like it better than nothing!

I think that was the point I made about the enormous buyin that should be forced when someone decides to buy insurance at a later date in life. right now, private insurance protects their pools from bad risks by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. In a system where there is one insurance pool that you either join or stay out of ...they penalty for someone joining late in life, with pre-existing conditions would have to be enormous wouldn't it Theo?

Those people pay higher rates. The people that are denied are akin to people trying to buy fire insurance after their homes have burned down. In other words, we already have a market penalty for people joining with pre-existing conditions...they don't get insurance.

Those people are why we have charity wards. They can rely on their families, friends, church, etc for help. Just because an insurance company won't pay for your surgery doesn't mean you have no options.

What if the person couldn't afford that penalty? Would you be comfortable denying them life saving treatment?

You deny them their treatment everyday when you choose not to hand over all of your money to pay for the treatment of people who can't afford it. How do you feel about it?

without that ultimate penalty, younger people would often to game the actuarial pool, counting on the forgiving nature of the public when they run into actual need that upsets their actuarial gamble.

Maybe they wouldn't do that if there were some actual consequences. Like, getting sick and having $100,000 in debt because of it.

And that's a huge moral problem. Forcing people to participate allows a society to avoid having to make that call.

Society doesn't make calls.

And, by the way. Society does so make decisions. That's what democratic government is about. That's what the establishment of laws, including property laws are all about. Many laws are already compulsory because society has decided they must be obeyed by all. Why? Because universal adherence means some can't act with impunity whilst others pay for their actions...
Same thing with compulsory medical insurance (or taxes, or programs).

Give me an example of a society making a decision, and I'll show you the individuals who actually decided.