danivon wrote: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...

Because he continuously raises the canard of the superiority of pure socialized medicine.

Why is it a canard? Because Obama and the Democrats didn't pass pure socialized medicine, so he might as well be arguing for a doctor in every house and a hospital on every block. Those are equally realistic as socialized medicine in the US.

So, he'll say "Medicare is socialized medicine."

Kind of, but not really--still a lot of companies involved.

Then he'll claim, "Medicare is really popular."

Sure. Anything that is given by government that you don't pay full value for is going to be popular. If the government gave winning lottery tickets to every 67 year-old retiree, that would be popular too. It would also bankrupt the country--just like Medicare will if the issues are not addressed.

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.

In your opinion. Thankfully, within the confines of our law, it matters exactly as much as Richard's.

Richard,

I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in market pressures. You think government can dictate prices and fees for services without consequence.

That's not the real world.

You are free to spew on about the wonders of socialized medicine. Please convince the Democrats and then we can have a debate.

I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in market pressures. You think government can dictate prices and fees for services without consequence.

I'll take this as an admission that you have no arguement.
For the record, and since you don't quite understand, I absolutely believe in market pressures, levers, conditions, and I also recognize when they have been gamed by the participating companies for larger profits.. . One of the levers available to participants in a market is the ability to negotiate better prices and fees when negotiating as a larger group. And thats what socialized medical systems have done .
You're right that there are consequences for every action. Which is why nothing is perfect. But one of the consequences is that no other nation spends as much for the same medicine or procedure as the US.
The savings in administration and the savings from taking out the profit and marketing costs from insurers also occurs, accruing to both service providers and the plan.

rickyp wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you. You don't believe in market pressures. You think government can dictate prices and fees for services without consequence.

I'll take this as an admission that you have no arguement.

You can take this as an admission that arguing with a fool like you is an absolute waste of both of our times. You ignore questions, make crazy claims (like "the free market" does this or does that when you know there is no "free market"), and bring up all manner of unrelated items--like Canadian healthcare. Who cares about a system we're not debating? It may or may not be better, but NO ONE in the US is concerned about that. Our politicians passed something entirely different and bringing Canada into the discussion about Obamacare is as relevant as discussing medical care on Pluto.

For the record, and since you don't quite understand, I absolutely believe in market pressures, levers, conditions, and I also recognize when they have been gamed by the participating companies for larger profits.. .

What you made abundantly clear in your tirade about "free markets" is that you don't know what "free" means. Must be in the water.

One of the levers available to participants in a market is the ability to negotiate better prices and fees when negotiating as a larger group. And thats what socialized medical systems have done .
You're right that there are consequences for every action. Which is why nothing is perfect. But one of the consequences is that no other nation spends as much for the same medicine or procedure as the US.

Good for us! No one spends as much on military either, which is why weasels like the UK and France can whine to us to save their bacon in some backwater village like Libya. Why don't you call for us to socialize defense--you know, get all the Euros to pay "their fair share."

The savings in administration and the savings from taking out the profit and marketing costs from insurers also occurs, accruing to both service providers and the plan.

Send it in a letter to Obama. He didn't go with your plan. Thinking Americans have no interest in your plan. So, as I said, blather all you want about socialized healthcare, no one cares.

I agree with you that Obama hasn't gone far enough... So so most American doctors.

Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows

http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=american%20attitudes%20on%20single%20payer%20health%20insurance&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

rickyp wrote:I agree with you that Obama hasn't gone far enough... So so most American doctors.

Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows

http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=american%20attitudes%20on%20single%20payer%20health%20insurance&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

Thanks for listing the results of a bing search. Valuable.

As for "most doctors," I don't know if that's true--don't confuse the AMA or any organization as "most doctors."

Right. Well, next stop, USSC:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

The interesting thing about the 11th circuit decision is that the 2 person major included one judge appoint by a Republican and one judge appointed my a Democrat. When the previous Circuit court upholding the mandate included a Republican appointee, supporters made it seem as if that was an guarantee of the mandate being upheld by SCOTUS.

However, I have seen barely a peep from anybody about the make up of the 11th Circuit majority. (of course I have been without internet access for 3 days so I could have missed something.)

Archduke Russell John wrote:The interesting thing about the 11th circuit decision is that the 2 person major included one judge appoint by a Republican and one judge appointed my a Democrat.

Hey, what do you know? The President apparently can forge a bipartisan consensus!

Ruff, you've offered your perceptions and beleive everyone thinks like you...Yet here's what I found :

Americans "are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care." So writes Republican pollster Frank Luntz in a widely circulated set of talking points on how to stop a "government takeover" of health care.
Yet in summing up recent survey results, the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly and Jon Cohen write that poll questions "that equate the public option approach with the popular, patient-friendly Medicare system tend to get high approval, as do ones that emphasize the prospect of more choices."
Read more from Mark Blumenthal on Medicare polling at Pollster.com.Indeed, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found 62 percent of Americans expressing support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." Other pollsters describing the public option as "government administered" and "similar to Medicare" gauged even more positive reactions: 67 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in April and 72 percent in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll.
So if Americans live in fear of government intrusion into health care, why does likening the public option to Medicare make reform more popular?
Consider some results obtained by the same Kaiser tracking poll. When asked how much they trust various health care players "to put your interests above their own," respondents rank doctors (78 percent trust "a lot" or "some") and nurses (74 percent) at the top of the list.
Among those insured through Medicare, however, "the Medicare program" (68 percent) scores nearly as high. Among those with private insurance, "your health insurance company" earns much less trust (48 percent).

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/who-s-afraid-of-public-insurance--20090629

So there is a greater trust of Medicare then of private insurance...
Are the beauracrats at private health care even eviller then the gubmint workers Ruff?

ruffhaus
The study you sight and conclusions drawn from it are equally silly if not downright apples to orages. Medicare recipiants don't use private insurance and privately insured persons do not recieve Medicare.

Since you are personnaly on private insurance, than I can draw from your comments about the attitudinal reasearch that your comments about medicare are silly? After all, you don't have first hand knowledge of medicare do you? And its your personal experiences at the DMV that have informed you on this matter. And is that fair to weigh the actual customer experience of millions with your bad day run in at the DMV? And don't you have automated service kiosks now?
The reason customer satisfaction surveys are important (most private companies condcut them regularly) is becasue without them all we have are uniformed or misinformed opinions like yours.

rickyp wrote:The reason customer satisfaction surveys are important (most private companies condcut them regularly) is becasue without them all we have are uniformed or misinformed opinions like yours.

I have firsthand experience with Medicare. I have custodial care of a relative on Medicare/Medicaid. I think it's an overly expensive disaster that is going to bankrupt America. Since I have firsthand experience, that ends the argument, right?

rickyp wrote: Medicare recipiants don't use private insurance and privately insured persons do not recieve Medicare.

Uhm yes they do. First off Medicare Part B (basic, day to day medical care) only covers 80% of the cost of "medically necessary" services. The individual must pay the other 20%. What most people do it purchase what is called a federally approved medigap policy from a private insurance company to cover the other 20%.

Further Part B only covers Medically-necessary services (services or supplies that are needed to diagnose or treat your medical condition and that meet accepted standards of medical practice) and preventive services (health care to prevent illness (like the flu) or detect it at an early stage, when treatment is most likely to work best.) It does not cover things like vision, hearing, dental, and/or health and wellness programs.

Therefore, can purchase Medicare Part C plans which are federally approved plans offered by private insurance companies that cover everything covered by Parts A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance) as well as extra coverage for things such as such as vision, hearing, dental, and/or health and wellness programs. As I said, these Part C, Medicare Advantage Plans, are run and operated by private insurance companies and you pay said company the premium. Just about everybody purchases these.

Further, on top of this, even if you have a private insurance coverage for life as part of a retirement policy, once you are over 65 years of age, said insurance plan will only cover 20% of your medical costs. Medicare covers the balance. So for example, let's say you have an UAW employee that retired years ago with the guaranttee of full medical coverage for the rest of your life. Once said retiree turns 65, he will still become covered by Medicare Parts A & B and his pension insurance acts like a Part C plan.

I do not believe there is anybody in the country that has just straight plain Medicare.

Uhm yes they do

Small point, but it wasn't I who said that originally. It was Ruffhaus. (I just missed the quote box.) But this correction points out that one's individual view point, expericience and understanding doesn't necessarilly reflect either the reality or the experience of the customer base at large.
Survey after survey points to general customer satisfaction levels with Medicare over that of private insurance.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote: Medicare recipiants don't use private insurance and privately insured persons do not recieve Medicare.

Uhm yes they do. First off Medicare Part B (basic, day to day medical care) only covers 80% of the cost of "medically necessary" services. The individual must pay the other 20%. What most people do it purchase what is called a federally approved medigap policy from a private insurance company to cover the other 20%.

100% correct. In fact, even with a prescription rebate plan, we were going further and further in debt until I got one of these. And, that was even though this relative qualified for Medicaid.