Yet, liberals pretend that a government monopoly on healthcare will drive down costs. How

?

If the socialized delivery of health care was a monopoly and according to you therefore rife with fraud abuse and cost why is it that no nation with such a system spends more than 12% to universally cover their populace whilst the US spend 17% and doesn't manage that?

rickyp wrote:

Yet, liberals pretend that a government monopoly on healthcare will drive down costs. How

?

If the socialized delivery of health care was a monopoly and according to you therefore rife with fraud abuse and cost why is it that no nation with such a system spends more than 12% to universally cover their populace whilst the US spend 17% and doesn't manage that?

Let's see. How about we start with giving government the right to decide when to stop treatment?

Beyond that, Obamacare is not a purely socialistic endeavor. I'd say it's worse.

steve

Let's see. How about we start with giving government the right to decide when to stop treatment?

And where does that happen Steve? You have evidence you can provide?
Or do you Just Believe.

Well, for one thing, I have coverage that these other countries do not offer. If my coverage gets worse, I switch to a plan that gives that coverage I am looking for. That being said, my personal coverage has gotten progressively worse year after year. For a time it was FAR better than anywhere else, but now the differences are slight. That's my biggest problem, while protesting most of these suggested plans, that is not to say I think our system is working well as is or is on the right track. But to simply adopt other nations plans because they are 'good enough" doesn't sit well with me nor most other Americans who expect better than "good enough".

rickyp wrote:steve

Let's see. How about we start with giving government the right to decide when to stop treatment?

And where does that happen Steve? You have evidence you can provide?
Or do you Just Believe.

Maybe I should find some old Ezra Klein article. That's usually as good as it gets from you.

What do YOU think the IPAB will be doing? Combing their hair? They are going to set limits for treatment--that is why the board is being created. Here's what a certifiable liberal (he's both certifiable and liberal), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said about IPAB:

“… IPAB is a dangerous provision. By statute, this Commission would be required to hold Medicare spending to an arbitrary and unrealistic growth rate. It is a mindless rate-cutting machine that sets the program up for unsustainable cuts. That will endanger the health of American's seniors and people with disabilities. It is an unprecedented abrogation of Congressional authority to an unelected, unaccountable body of so-called experts. I intend to work tirelessly to mitigate the damage that will be caused by IPAB.”

Do you want more evidence?

Steve, you're offering a congressman's opinion of what the thinks the effects of a board that doesn't yet exist as concrete evidence to support your response below:
R

If the socialized delivery of health care was a monopoly and according to you therefore rife with fraud abuse and cost why is it that no nation with such a system spends more than 12% to universally cover their populace whilst the US spend 17% and doesn't manage that?

S responds

Let's see. How about we start with giving government the right to decide when to stop treatment?

R challenges:

And where does that happen Steve? You have evidence you can provide

Its pretty pathetic Steve. If you could point to countries that achieve universal care for 12% and less of GDP and find that these countries have government agencies unilaterally cutting off care. Then you have evidence.
Otherwise all you have is uninformed supposition about the effects of a board designed to try and lower the basic services delivered to Medicare. If people don't start trying to lower the costs of Medicare by examining how the services are delivered, and what legitimate fees would be for delivery of the service, how can cost control ever be attained? To conflate the basic business practices of cost/benefit and price sourcing being suddenly applied to the patient doctor relationship is hugely dishonest or hugely confused. I'm sure Stark is confused.
People believe that Medicare can't deliver services as efficiently as private health insurance. And yet it already is more efficient. If they then start to universally apply the kinds of disciplines that most companies apply to their supply chain, and are provided with the authority to negotiate supplier agreements, and delivery methods then they can be even more efficient. Which is what happens in other nations with national insurance or health programs... And its no different than the business practices of ordinary industries. And has nothing to do with issues of treatment that are managed by the doctor patient relationship.

And for the record, in the US private insurance companies cut off and refuse treatment for a lot of patients right now. Is somehow comforting to you that they do this for reasons of profit?

rickyp wrote:Steve, you're offering a congressman's opinion of what the thinks the effects of a board that doesn't yet exist as concrete evidence to support your response below:
R

If the socialized delivery of health care was a monopoly and according to you therefore rife with fraud abuse and cost why is it that no nation with such a system spends more than 12% to universally cover their populace whilst the US spend 17% and doesn't manage that?

S responds

Let's see. How about we start with giving government the right to decide when to stop treatment?

R challenges:

And where does that happen Steve? You have evidence you can provide

Its pretty pathetic Steve..

No, Richard, it's not "pathetic." It is, in fact, what the Pelosi/Reid/Obama bill will do. Even a liberal/socialist like Pete Stark recognizes it.

Your own country, fyi, decides limits to treatment, does it not?

What is "pathetic" is living in a glass house and throwing stones. That's exactly what you are doing. Canada does have limits.

For you to suggest that I must disprove the efficiencies of socialized medicine is "pathetic." What is "pathetic" is your continuing derision of the "free market" even though we all know the healthcare insurance market is not "free" at all. What is "pathetic," dear Richard, is then changing your argument from "free market" to "competition," as in "competition can't work." Healthcare is unlike anything else? That is a "pathetic" notion. What is "pathetic" is your inability to tell me why, if healthcare insurance is non-competitive, the FTC isn't involved. Isn't that the government's job, Richard?

I ask, you don't answer. You ask, I answer in a way that doesn't please you, so you call it "pathetic." You, Richard, are . . . not terribly rational, informative, or lucid.

The truth is that if cars, computers, life insurance, entertainment, or any other commodity or service was as highly regulated as healthcare insurance, the prices would resemble a cartel or a monopoly--just as healthcare insurance does.

If you could point to countries that achieve universal care for 12% and less of GDP and find that these countries have government agencies unilaterally cutting off care.

How many examples do you want? You already know this exists--there was a huge debate on these boards some time ago about the British healthcare system. All the reports of cuts, etc.

Government cannot simply tell healthcare providers "We're going to pay you less and you must provide the current services." That is the Obamacare approach. It cannot work. Anyone with half of a half of a brain understands that. Pete Stark understands that.

I'm sure Stark is confused.

You've blathered a lot, but do . . . you . . . have . . . evidence???

And for the record, in the US private insurance companies cut off and refuse treatment for a lot of patients right now.

"For the record . . .?" Without evidence? You saying it is supposed to suffice? Can't you see what a hypocrite you are?

In any event, the difference is that in a free market, we would be able to go to insurance companies with proven track records. Think of it as E-Bay or Angie's list. Eventually, the power of the marketplace would correct bad behavior.

We ALL have limits on what will or will not be treated. Call them whatever you like but they are there in every single system in the world. The problem as I happen to see it...
In places with socialized care (like "Richard's" Canada) they have had care cut off well before my care has been. The problem is, my care has gotten progressively worse and has gotten closer and closer to places such as Canada's while costing much more that theirs. But when we have companies competing with each other, they have been less likely to drop their care in fear of losing business to competition and I am one of many in my area that has flip flopped between health care providers shopping for what fits me and my family best. To have the government come in, with NO competition and expect them to keep care high, I think Steve has every right to be concerned, after all, we do not want your coverage, you may be happy with it, but Steve, me, most Americans who are already insured do not want YOUR system or your coverage.

In a recent study of seven western nations, Canada came 6th - second from bottom. I don't think that Canada's system is all that great, frankly.

The USA came 7th, and not just in terms of access or cost, it covered outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency...

(The Netherlands was 1st)

Good Lord Steve. Shona Holmes? She was exposed as liar two days after the article.
But you should red pages two and three of your link too..

Well, the truth is now out and the fact is Shona Holmes never actually had a life-threatening brain tumor, as she's been claiming in those ads and interviews on American TV. Instead, according to the Mayo Clinic where she was treated, her "brain tumor" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland and "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."
The real story, it seems, is that she was on a waiting list for treatment here in Canada for her non-life-threatening benign cyst, but didn't want to wait and therefore went to the States and paid for her own treatment instead. This is quite a different story from the one presented in those ads: a story about how the Canadian system was going to just let her die because it's such a flawed, awful, dangerous system.
All this is from a great article by Julie Mason that appeared earlier this week in the Ottawa Citizen

There isn't denial of service here Steve. There is prioritizing. For instance I had to wait 6 weeks for an MRI on my knee. Considered non-emergent and since I've waited 30 years to finally do something I guess that's true. What you are trying to claim, without evidence, is that a board in the US will be set up to decide on whether or not people will be granted life saving treatment. And you're trying to claim it happens in socialized systems.
Neither is true. There is prioritizing and unless you've never actually seen a miedical drama, you'd know that medical boards in the States already limit access to some procedures as a matter of course. (Organ translplant, experimental suregery etc.)

And Danivon is right. We havn't got a great health care system compared to the Dutch.

Now, can negotiating with suppliers and using the advanatges of negotiating size not effectively reduce the cost from suppliers? To argue against that Steve, you're arguing against standard tactics of captialism and free markets. It probably wouldn;t be that a new universal medicare plan would simply cap doctors fees, or roll them back. However, by implementing a universal insurance plan he'd be providing two huge benefits to doctors. One: reduction of administration costs on their end. 2) almost total elimination of bad debts caused by insurance denials and patients inability to pay.
With those benefits, docots might be willing to hold the line of fees...(win win negotiatiing)
But thats a business like approach to the delivery, not ideological.
BTW the only evidence of Paul Ryans method is that it was used for Medicare Part D and didn't work. Inflation was 21% . But that was in Ezra Kleins article and so I guess you didn't retain that.

rickyp wrote:Good Lord Steve. Shona Holmes? She was exposed as liar two days after the article.

My mistake. I should have known CNN would be unreliable.

Of course, there was the situation just a few years ago when Canada was having to send expectant moms to the US.

There isn't denial of service here Steve.

Everything's peach, right Richard? No doctor shortages? None at all, right? The costs are all reasonable, right Richard? Oh, and Richard, tell me if this sounds familiar:

This week, Statistics Canada announced yet another rise in life expectancy: Babies born from 2005 to 2007 will live an average of 80.7 years, up from 78.4 a decade earlier. That is very good news, except that governments, which picked up $129-billion of last year's tab, spend five times as much on caring for seniors as for the population as a whole,.

“We have a demographic tsunami headed our way as baby boomers get into the age where they'll be requiring more health care,” says Deb Matthews, the Health Minister in Ontario, where health consumes 42 cents of every dollar in program spending.

Yet governments at all levels seem determined to avoid a public debate on how to sustain a system many Canadians appear to take for granted.

In a report this month, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page warns that, to cope with the changing demographics, the country must cut spending or raise taxes. The federal government will table its budget next Thursday and, despite pressure from such think tanks as the C.D. Howe Institute, says it has no plans to cut health spending. According to Mr. Page, it hasn't even begun to address the demands of its aging population.

Why? Perhaps because, as Friday’s Ipsos Reid poll for the Canadian Medical Association shows, Canadians want Ottawa to attack the deficit – but only 16 per cent support cutting health to do so.

So, maybe, just maybe, you Canadians should stop lecturing us about how perfect your system is? It's not. We don't want it and not even the Democrats proposed it. So, stop pitching it! You like it, keep it.

Now, can negotiating with suppliers and using the advanatges of negotiating size not effectively reduce the cost from suppliers? To argue against that Steve, you're arguing against standard tactics of captialism and free markets.

Last time: this is not what Obamacare does. So, stop arguing for something that is not in the plan.

Obamacare will just cut reimbursements. That will cause insurance companies to charge non-Medicare patients more to make up the difference. Insurance rates will continue to climb. Politicians will scream at the insurance companies--who are trying to simply stay out of the red. Obamacare will either bankrupt the country or force a one-payer system.

It probably wouldn;t be that a new universal medicare plan would simply cap doctors fees, or roll them back.

Which leads to what? Insurance hikes (as above) and doctor shortages. Who wants to go to medical school, suffer internship, etc., to make a marginal living? That might work for the "comrades," but being a doctor has been seen as a way to make good money. Fewer will choose that route if it means living a middle class lifestyle.

BTW the only evidence of Paul Ryans method is that it was used for Medicare Part D and didn't work. Inflation was 21% . But that was in Ezra Kleins article and so I guess you didn't retain that.

If Ezra Klein said the sun was coming up tomorrow, I would plan on life ending. I don't believe a thing he says--which is exactly how I view what you say.

rickyp wrote:Good Lord Steve.

I can assure you that Steve is not the Good Lord. If you would kindly refrain from invoking me, I would be most obliged.

or, I can hit you with some lightning. your call.

I had no idea He posted here.

Good to know.

Steve, did you read all of ricky's post?

And Danivon is right. We havn't got a great health care system compared to the Dutch.

That does not look like a claim of perfection to me. So why...

So, maybe, just maybe, you Canadians should stop lecturing us about how perfect your system is?

It isn't perfect. It's better than yours, but that's not saying much.

If Ezra Klein said the sun was coming up tomorrow, I would plan on life ending. I don't believe a thing he says--

If you don't beleive Kleins source (The CBO) you must have some source that contradicts him? OR is your your response to the presentation of third party evidence is to hold your breath and turn blue in the face till it goes away?
To remind you, so you don't have to make an effort and scroll back, hre's what Klein said about the Ryan plan's strategy and how its worked in the past to create downward pressure on costs.

But Part D hasn’t controlled costs. Instead, premiums have risen by 57 percent since 2006, and the program is expected to see nearly 10 percent growth in annual costs over the next decade.
Moreover, this isn’t the first time we’ve tried to let private insurers into Medicare to work their magic. The Medicare Advantage program, which invited private insurers to offer managed-care options to Medicare beneficiaries, was expected to save money, but it ended up costing about 120 percent of what Medicare costs

He also tends to agree with you that Obama's plan may not actually create cost competition either. So, how does your belief system deal with that concurrence?

I, on the other hand, wasn't defending Obama (I think he's attacking this problem in increments and it won't make the change required) so much as pointing out that socialized systems have controlled costs...effectively.
But again thats backed up with evidence not just faith in the "market" working its magic.
Here

In previous papers we have argued that the primary reason is that "it’s the prices, stupid." We have shown that the United States pays much higher prices than other countries for pharmaceuticals, hospital stays, and physician visits.2 This price differential continued in 2002. For example, the average cost of a hospital day in the United States in 2002 was $2,434, compared with $870 in Canada and even less in other OECD countries.3 The United States also pays much higher prices for physician services and pharmaceuticals.4
Part of the difference can be explained by higher U.S. incomes and cost of living. However, even after adjusting for each country’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP), U.S. health spending is still $2,037 higher than the predicted value.5 In past papers we have also examined other possible causes, including population aging and administrative complexity. Neither of these factors explains a sizable portion of the higher levels of U.S. health spending

source: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/4/903.full

If you bother to read this, it gets into an intricate examination of "waiting times" and "the cost of litigation" in different health care systems. Turns out that the kinds of procedures other systems have wait times for is only 3% of US spending and the US has wait times in areas different then the elective procedures the UK., Canada and Australia do...(primary care physician appointments)
And litigation, mal practice and insurance affects all systems but accounts for only 0.5% of spending in the US system and 0.2% in Canada.
Controlling costs gets down to who is able to bargain with suppliers of services.... effectively. Thats not a "socialized thing" so much as a business dynamic.