part of the reason health care costs so much

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

and there it is!
seriously...it's not a diffuclt concept to grasp, and yet...this is denied as 'impossible.'
it's been said in myriad different ways, but that is what it comes down to, really.

yea piece of cake :roll: we are talking about millions of jobs and trillions of dollars. yea, its so easy

jlew24asu

and lets say this miraculously "easy" shift takes place. the government has a proven track record of sucking bad at social programs. the cost will just go higher and higher and will be either be taxed more or print more money to pay for it.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

and lets say this miraculously "easy" shift takes place. the government has a proven track record of sucking bad at social programs. the cost will just go higher and higher and will be either be taxed more or print more money to pay for it.

when all else fails, pull the "gov't can't do anything right" card...

I had a healthcare discussion with my brother, a city firefighter and his brother-in-law, a police officer....both were saying private industry is better and the gov't can't run anything...I said "fine, let's privatize fire and police departments, you know, since private industry can do a much better job..."

interestingly, the conversation ended at that point...

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

and lets say this miraculously "easy" shift takes place. the government has a proven track record of sucking bad at social programs. the cost will just go higher and higher and will be either be taxed more or print more money to pay for it.

when all else fails, pull the "gov't can't do anything right" card...

I had a healthcare discussion with my brother, a city firefighter and his brother-in-law, a police officer....both were saying private industry is better and the gov't can't run anything...I said "fine, let's privatize fire and police departments, you know, since private industry can do a much better job..."

interestingly, the conversation ended at that point...

not surprised you ignored where I said sucking at "social programs". there are many things the government IS good at. fire/police/military being one of them.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

of course we can do it

we all pay for it now...universal care would remove the profit centers that are insurance companies and free up billions of dollars to provide care rather than line CEO's pockets

we just have to "shift" how we are paying for it now from monthly insurance premiums to an increase in taxes

so basically force everyone to pay into a system that may or may not work for them. I currently pay about $70 a month and my employer picks up around $300. but not all companies do that.

at my first job, a small business with about 20 employees, they didnt offer health care coverage. I paid my own for about $150 a month with a high deductible. it was basically for emergencies only. under UHC, you would force companies like this to pay? how much? enough to the point that some of those 20 employees would surely be let go.

not to mention you want to completely eliminate the insurance industry. in theory, maybe not so bad. but you would be eliminating millions of jobs.

yes there would be thousands of jobs cut....and I'm convinced that is what keeps anyone from doing anything about it

the "tax" would have to be some % of employer payroll....and then a general increase in the income tax

my guess would be that employers would love it....health insurance in this country is a scam and is driven by monopolies....I'm not sure what your experience has been but I could bore you with stories about how screwed up this system is...the end result is that our health care is driven by greed and profit....not quality care

Try to pay attention to how many hospitals in your area advertise....how much money are they spending on this? Why? One example of billions of dollars tied up that has absolutely no relation to providing quality care.

Gern Blansten

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

and lets say this miraculously "easy" shift takes place. the government has a proven track record of sucking bad at social programs. the cost will just go higher and higher and will be either be taxed more or print more money to pay for it.

when all else fails, pull the "gov't can't do anything right" card...

I had a healthcare discussion with my brother, a city firefighter and his brother-in-law, a police officer....both were saying private industry is better and the gov't can't run anything...I said "fine, let's privatize fire and police departments, you know, since private industry can do a much better job..."

interestingly, the conversation ended at that point...

that's a good comparison....can you imagine the bill you would get for fire services if your house caught on fire? Why should my neighbors pay for the fire dept to hose down my house? I'm the one who left the vibrator plugged in right?

Same for police...someone breaks in your house while your gone so you call the police once you discover...they send out detectives and start finding out who did it....lots of man hours there....would be very expensive

That would be the perfect idea to sell police insurance

but no we make it a public service and spread the cost to everyone....because we all benefit from this protecion

the same way we would ALL benefit from health care

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

yes there would be thousands of jobs cut....and I'm convinced that is what keeps anyone from doing anything about it

the "tax" would have to be some % of employer payroll....and then a general increase in the income tax

my guess would be that employers would love it....health insurance in this country is a scam and is driven by monopolies....I'm not sure what your experience has been but I could bore you with stories about how screwed up this system is...the end result is that our health care is driven by greed and profit....not quality care

Try to pay attention to how many hospitals in your area advertise....how much money are they spending on this? Why? One example of billions of dollars tied up that has absolutely no relation to providing quality care.

there is room for improvement and even government regulation. but not 100% control.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

and lets say this miraculously "easy" shift takes place. the government has a proven track record of sucking bad at social programs. the cost will just go higher and higher and will be either be taxed more or print more money to pay for it.

when all else fails, pull the "gov't can't do anything right" card...

I had a healthcare discussion with my brother, a city firefighter and his brother-in-law, a police officer....both were saying private industry is better and the gov't can't run anything...I said "fine, let's privatize fire and police departments, you know, since private industry can do a much better job..."

interestingly, the conversation ended at that point...

not surprised you ignored where I said sucking at "social programs". there are many things the government IS good at. fire/police/military being one of them.

UHC would not be a "social program"...I see it more along the lines of health and safety...you know, like police and firefighters....

why do you assume UHC would suck...? as I've wondered before, those who currently have Medicaid and Medicare aren't forgoing those "sucky" programs for privately run insurance programs, are they...?

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

yes there would be thousands of jobs cut....and I'm convinced that is what keeps anyone from doing anything about it

the "tax" would have to be some % of employer payroll....and then a general increase in the income tax

my guess would be that employers would love it....health insurance in this country is a scam and is driven by monopolies....I'm not sure what your experience has been but I could bore you with stories about how screwed up this system is...the end result is that our health care is driven by greed and profit....not quality care

Try to pay attention to how many hospitals in your area advertise....how much money are they spending on this? Why? One example of billions of dollars tied up that has absolutely no relation to providing quality care.

there is room for improvement and even government regulation. but not 100% control.

my main point being that any private business could argue that they could do what gov't does for less cost....but there is also a point where the gov't can step in and do the same thing to a non public business....we have reached that point with health care

the bigger issue that I haven't seen here yet is that we as taxpayers already shoulder the burden of the poor who go to the hospitals and don't pay their bills....we already pay that

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

and there it is!
seriously...it's not a diffuclt concept to grasp, and yet...this is denied as 'impossible.'
it's been said in myriad different ways, but that is what it comes down to, really.

yea piece of cake :roll: we are talking about millions of jobs and trillions of dollars. yea, its so easy

yea...none of which i said.
our current system does not work well for us, and it certainly is possible to change it. piece of cake? no. easy? no. never said that. simply that it CAN be done. i along with many others have given suggestions as to, possibly, how it can even start to be addressed, but sure..i leave it to the thinkers/planners to work it all out. bottomline, if even i can see the possibilities, i highly doubt i am alone there.


also, do see threads by byrnzie and scb about healthcare.
don't worry about michael moore, it's not 'about' him, but about a healthcare insider speaking rather frankly....and see too the thread about healthcare rationing. and none of it is particularly surprising. sad, but unsurprising.

one thing you might find interesting, the health industry insider actually spoke to stats of those who receive meidcare, government run/funded healthcare...overall...have a higher satisfaction rating with their care than those who pay for private insurance.




and btw to Gern Blansten...
great posts...thanks for sharing your pov. it's always nice to see a fresh perspective expressed on this topic.

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

UHC would not be a "social program"...I see it more along the lines of health and safety...you know, like police and firefighters....

call it whatever you want. its still a social program. similar to social security and medicare. both extremely underfunded programs. are they bad programs? not necessarily. but what they are is underfunded and failing. solution? borrow, tax, and print money.

inmytree wrote:

why do you assume UHC would suck...? as I've wondered before, those who currently have Medicaid and Medicare aren't forgoing those "sucky" programs for privately run insurance programs, are they...?

yea I know. you keep saying this over and over and over as if you are making a point. you're not. people can't "opt out of medicare" and switch to private programs.

and medicare isn't sucky as far as care because it utilizes the private healthcare system. it sucks because its underfunded and can not be sustained at its current pace.

but turn over the healthcare system to the government are quality care will quickly diminish.

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

In what context are you referring to socialism as a proven not good thing?

any country that has been communist. I'm all for government stepping in to help those less fortunate, or children, or elderly. but what I don't want is the government to have 100% control of the healthcare system

You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.

jlew24asu

SundaySilence wrote:

You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.

tax transfer investments nice.

UHC would imply the government commands 100% control of the system. sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

UHC would not be a "social program"...I see it more along the lines of health and safety...you know, like police and firefighters....

call it whatever you want. its still a social program. similar to social security and medicare. both extremely underfunded programs. are they bad programs? not necessarily. but what they are is underfunded and failing. solution? borrow, tax, and print money.

inmytree wrote:

why do you assume UHC would suck...? as I've wondered before, those who currently have Medicaid and Medicare aren't forgoing those "sucky" programs for privately run insurance programs, are they...?

yea I know. you keep saying this over and over and over as if you are making a point. you're not. people can't "opt out of medicare" and switch to private programs.

and medicare isn't sucky as far as care because it utilizes the private healthcare system. it sucks because its underfunded and can not be sustained at its current pace.

but turn over the healthcare system to the government are quality care will quickly diminish.

I say not social, you say social...fine...

can't opt out, huh...yeah, there forced into using it...they can purchase a private plan if they want to....it's a much better option...right...?

and yeah, you keep saying over and over and over that we can't afford it and it will fail and it's gonna suck...

yet, I've seen no alternative from anyone opposed to UHC...I suppose the status quo is ok...

I will say this, if UHC doesn't happen, I'd be ok with the creation of a Public Option i.e. Gov't run insurance alternative....

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.

tax transfer investments nice.

UHC would imply the government commands 100% control of the system. sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

We have government financial involvement in postage, utilities, fire departments, police departments, waterways, highways, water and sewage treatment, hospitals, universities, schools...these are investments that we find in successful market based economies.

And regardless of your cold war paranoia, its not authoritarian if accountable to the will of the people.

_

soulsinging wrote:

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

I'm all for that, but how exactly do you propose to do that?

Honestly, I haven't given it enough thought yet to answer this. It was just a question.

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

I say not social, you say social...fine...

can't opt out, huh...yeah, there forced into using it...they can purchase a private plan if they want to....it's a much better option...right...?

whats the point of getting private insurance if you are forced to use medicare? there is not. so your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Medicare is not a bad program. its just unsustainable at its current spending pace. and when the money runs out, which is will in 2020....what do you do? raise taxes, borrow money, and/or print more money.

inmytree wrote:

and yeah, you keep saying over and over and over that we can't afford it and it will fail and it's gonna suck...

yet, I've seen no alternative from anyone opposed to UHC...I suppose the status quo is ok...

I've given my solution several times. if you'd like to hear it again, let me know.

inmytree wrote:

I will say this, if UHC doesn't happen, I'd be ok with the creation of a Public Option i.e. Gov't run insurance alternative....

I might be ok with this too, but I fear businesses will start dropping coverage for employees and we would all be forced to depend on the government option. which will only lead to cost overruns and typical government mismanagement.

WaveCameCrashin

The Feds cant run an efficient health care system.But the Gov. can stop profiteering and unfair practices

Obama's vision is a giant Federal apparatus funded primarily by the wealthy. Punitive taxation will not be able to pay the bills.and we could very well go bankrupt just like california has.

The key to reforming healthcare is industry oversight on cost,punishing frivolous lawsuits against doctors,mandating that hospitals charge according to Gov.. guidelines.

Also setting up clinics for the poor where they can be treated free of charge. Thats doable and wouldn't bankrupt the country..It allows the private system we have in place to continue.,but prevents exploitation and price gouging. every state has medical boards right now. All they have to do is police the cost and any violation could result in the loss of license.

soulsinging

scb wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

scb wrote:

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

I'm all for that, but how exactly do you propose to do that?

Honestly, I haven't given it enough thought yet to answer this. It was just a question.

Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.

you want my solution....not sure how to draw this up but ALL money used by candidates for campaigns be tax payer money. everyone gets equal share, and your share increases as you win popularity. or something like that, the details can be worked out by the smart people.