um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of millionaires who eat regularly at drive-thru McDonalds. :roll:
INCOME is the #1 predictor of health in this country - not lifestyle choices, genetics, etc. I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs and is a direct result of our for-profit system.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
I don't think you're getting the point.
A. We're talking about population health here.
B. I said lifestyle "choice". Socio-economic status limits ones choices.
C. A poor man with good habits still has a lower life expectancy than a rich man with the same habits.
D. Poverty causes stress and stress lowers the immune system, leading to increased illness.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. But, lest you think I'm just relying on conventional wisdom (like some people in this conversation), let me quote one of the experts.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of millionaires who eat regularly at drive-thru McDonalds. :roll:
what, no half page link cut and pasted to do your talking for you? there must be a link out there somewhere proving that rich people dont eat fast food.
anyway I bet my life there are millionaires eating fast food.. and if not McDonalds, then they are stuffing their face with all sorts of bad expensive food. makes no fucking difference where it comes from. thanks for stopping by and adding so much to the discussion as usual
INCOME is the #1 predictor of health in this country - not lifestyle choices, genetics, etc. I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs and is a direct result of our for-profit system.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
I don't think you're getting the point.
A. We're talking about population health here.
B. I said lifestyle "choice". Socio-economic status limits ones choices.
C. A poor man with good habits still has a lower life expectancy than a rich man with the same habits.
D. Poverty causes stress and stress lowers the immune system, leading to increased illness.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. But, lest you think I'm just relying on conventional wisdom (like some people in this conversation), let me quote one of the experts.
We know that social class is the most important determinant of health above any other risk factor.
(From, "Unnatural Causes: Is inequality making us sick?" Episode 1, "In Sickness & In Wealth")
ok, you are talking on a general scale, I got it. and I appreciate you quoting an "expert". I'm not sure I totally agree and I bet I can find another expect to refute this. I'll look around
regardless, eating habits play a HUGE role in health no matter what your financial status.
The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005; 352:1138-1145. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., Douglas J. Passaro, M.D., Ronald C. Hershow, M.D., Jennifer Layden, M.P.H., Bruce A. Carnes, Ph.D., Jacob Brody, M.D., Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Robert N. Butler, M.D., David B. Allison, Ph.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D.
Also, I learned about it in my public health classes. It's attributed to obesity.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
bottom line, money and profits do spur on innovations. healthcare innovations are happening and will continue under a for profit system. it certainly could under a government run program as well. but that just means higher taxes to pay for it.
Life expectancy is also lower for Americans who are poor, which says a lot about how our current system is failing us.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
christ. :roll:
it's been said over and over and over...right now...in our 'for profit' healthcare culture....the GOVERNMENT subsidizes a GREAt # of all these 'innovations' thru grants and funds....ALL the time. and the 'innovators' are the doctors and scientists, who still would be getting paid under a not-for-profit model...just no dividends off these innovations going into stockholder pockets. also, with the 'higher taxes'...yes....true....inb reality......may be the same or less out of pocket cost b/c NO more healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc.
suggesting we actually only cover *some* of our citizens as you suggest, actually would more than likely increase taxes for all, b/c where would these funds come from? whereas if we embrace a UHC model for all, remove the 'for profit' nature of our healthcare system, as mentioned, more than likely, keep costs the same.
i am not one for research, i leave to that to many others .....but over the weekend in one of my magazines, whether women's health, real simple or health....i don't rmemeber....
anyhoo, there was a blurb about medical costs. specifically cancer treatments, and it stated that 1 in 6 cancer patients CANNOT afford ther treatements - becuase even though they HAVE health insurance, the deductibles and copays are too crippling to afford. so yes......there's our wonderful health system at 'work'...works just fine until you actually need it. so even WITH insurance, the costs can skyrocket. that is not a system that *works*....and the sad thing is, you read about this shit ALL the time! so yea, it's NOT just about the poor or elderly, tho they are most at risk....but it's ALSO about you and me, and yea....we may well just become poor b/c this very thing could easily happen to any one of us.
The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005; 352:1138-1145. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., Douglas J. Passaro, M.D., Ronald C. Hershow, M.D., Jennifer Layden, M.P.H., Bruce A. Carnes, Ph.D., Jacob Brody, M.D., Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Robert N. Butler, M.D., David B. Allison, Ph.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D.
Also, I learned about it in my public health classes. It's attributed to obesity.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
bottom line, money and profits do spur on innovations. healthcare innovations are happening and will continue under a for profit system. it certainly could under a government run program as well. but that just means higher taxes to pay for it.
Life expectancy is also lower for Americans who are poor, which says a lot about how our current system is failing us.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
christ. :roll:
it's been said over and over and over...right now...in our 'for profit' healthcare culture....the GOVERNMENT subsidizes a GREAt # of all these 'innovations' thru grants and funds....ALL the time. and the 'innovators' are the doctors and scientists, who still would be getting paid under a not-for-profit model...just no dividends off these innovations going into stockholder pockets. also, with the 'higher taxes'...yes....true....inb reality......may be the same or less out of pocket cost b/c NO more healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc.
suggesting we actually only cover *some* of our citizens as you suggest, actually would more than likely increase taxes for all, b/c where would these funds come from? whereas if we embrace a UHC model for all, remove the 'for profit' nature of our healthcare system, as mentioned, more than likely, keep costs the same.
its monday morning, dont start getting all excited on me just yet
you have your opinion and I disagree. taxes would be raised far more then you seem to think mostly based solely on the fact that they have no regard for spending tax payer money efficiently.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
bottom line, money and profits do spur on innovations. healthcare innovations are happening and will continue under a for profit system. it certainly could under a government run program as well. but that just means higher taxes to pay for it.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
christ. :roll:
it's been said over and over and over...right now...in our 'for profit' healthcare culture....the GOVERNMENT subsidizes a GREAt # of all these 'innovations' thru grants and funds....ALL the time. and the 'innovators' are the doctors and scientists, who still would be getting paid under a not-for-profit model...just no dividends off these innovations going into stockholder pockets. also, with the 'higher taxes'...yes....true....inb reality......may be the same or less out of pocket cost b/c NO more healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc.
suggesting we actually only cover *some* of our citizens as you suggest, actually would more than likely increase taxes for all, b/c where would these funds come from? whereas if we embrace a UHC model for all, remove the 'for profit' nature of our healthcare system, as mentioned, more than likely, keep costs the same.
its monday morning, dont start getting all excited on me just yet
you have your opinion and I disagree. taxes would be raised far more then you seem to think mostly based solely on the fact that they have no regard for spending tax payer money efficiently.
bottomline...that is an ASSUMPTION on your part.
done correctly, there is no reason for that to occur.
and you can go on and on about track record, past failures, etc...i'm aware of all of it. none the less, it is certainly possible to do it correctly ad not cost more $$$. beyond that, even if taxes were raised, overall, if it absolutely guaranteed healthcare for ALL, for LIFE....and we wouldn't have ANyone who 'can't afford' healthcare and the treatments needed, you betcha...sign me up.
and really, what i was focusing on is your continual comments that innovation is linked soley to profit, and it just ain't so simple. that's all.
and no worries jlew...you have no ability to get me excited.......;)
also, just pointing out that your system would almost guarantee raises in taxes w/o benefit for all. i mean, how would you say you'd fund this healthcare for the elderly, unemployed, the poor...whoever else you say should ge governement healthcare, just not the rest of us? if we still operate in an overall for profit environment for the rest of us...where is the funding for this system you imagine? still would raise taxes. so yea....i'll take same or even slightly elevated taxbase along with healthcare for ALL, for LIFE...thanks.
already agreed to disagree with you, but on occasion...i still need to address/refute some of your posts, simply b/c i can't help myself.
what, no half page link cut and pasted to do your talking for you? there must be a link out there somewhere proving that rich people dont eat fast food.
I often support what I say with source material. Why are you pretending that's a bad thing? Maybe because I invariably prove you to be wrong?
and you can go on and on about track record, past failures, etc...i'm aware of all of it. none the less, it is certainly possible to do it correctly ad not cost more $$$. beyond that, even if taxes were raised, overall, if it absolutely guaranteed healthcare for ALL, for LIFE....and we wouldn't have ANyone who 'can't afford' healthcare and the treatments needed, you betcha...sign me up.
you're aware of it? are you sure?
with UHC you might guaranteed healthcare for all, but you aren't guaranteeing quality healthcare for all. not to mention, you can not guarantee taxing and spending wont go out of control.
and you can go on and on about track record, past failures, etc...i'm aware of all of it. none the less, it is certainly possible to do it correctly ad not cost more $$$. beyond that, even if taxes were raised, overall, if it absolutely guaranteed healthcare for ALL, for LIFE....and we wouldn't have ANyone who 'can't afford' healthcare and the treatments needed, you betcha...sign me up.
you're aware of it? are you sure?
with UHC you might guaranteed healthcare for all, but you aren't guaranteeing quality healthcare for all. not to mention, you can not guarantee taxing and spending wont go out of control.
and really, what i was focusing on is your continual comments that innovation is linked soley to profit, and it just ain't so simple. that's all.
I never said innovation was linked SOLELY to profits. I simply stated they are correlated. thats all.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
and i am not going back over this thread but within many of your posts you have mentioned without profit as a motivator there is no motivation for innovation. sorry for turning that around on you and saying that then menas you think it cannot exist without it. :roll: apparently my inference. bottomline, once again......THE innovators, the doctors and scientists, STILL GET PAID...and sicne the GOVERNMENT(s) here and abroad ALREADY fund so much of the INNOVATIVE RESEARCH already happening, i do not see why the removal of a for profit nature to the healthcare system would at all infringe on future innovations in the meidcal fields.
we just keep going round and round the same points. i have answered, and reanswered these questions numerous times. idk what else i can say to refute your claims. we go on about innovation, we go on about costs, we go on about quality of care,....ALL of which does not have to suffer within a UHC model, at all. yes, i admit it's possible we could choose to do a half-assed job, mor ethan likely b/c of those 'afraid' of UHC...or those who doom it to failure before it even starts....and so yes, it's possible it could be a disaster. however, again, if done RIGHT...which is very possible...there is NO reason why quality of care should suffer, why innovative research would cease nor that costs overall should rise,....all possible. that is all.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
its a 100% certainty that taxes will be raised if the US government adopts Universal Healthcare. I'll tell you how. right now my employer VOLUNTARILY pay 80% of my healthcare premium. they can choose at any time to stop doing this. same goes for me if I'm self employed. It would be my CHOICE to pay for healthcare insurance. say I make 10 million a year, health insurance wouldnt be necessary, I can afford to just pay cash for my bills. point being, its voluntary.
under your plan, you keep saying my healthcare insurance payment would be gone. thats true. but they would come back in the form of taxes. taxes that dont exist yet. and businesses would now be taxed to pay their portion....which is no longer voluntary.
and say I lose my job and dont pay taxes anymore. who picks up my portion of the heathcare bill? the government will borrow to fund it. further ballooning the deficit and raise taxes to pay for a multi Trillion dollar dept.
now with quality, yes, we are both assuming what that would be like. it is also "more then possible" that the quality of care would decline.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
Like I said, I am all for changes...just not one extreme as UHC.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
its a 100% certainty that taxes will be raised if the US government adopts Universal Healthcare. I'll tell you how. right now my employer VOLUNTARILY pay 80% of my healthcare premium. they can choose at any time to stop doing this. same goes for me if I'm self employed. It would be my CHOICE to pay for healthcare insurance. say I make 10 million a year, health insurance wouldnt be necessary, I can afford to just pay cash for my bills. point being, its voluntary.
under your plan, you keep saying my healthcare insurance payment would be gone. thats true. but they would come back in the form of taxes. taxes that dont exist yet. and businesses would now be taxed to pay their portion....which is no longer voluntary.
and say I lose my job and dont pay taxes anymore. who picks up my portion of the heathcare bill? the government will borrow to fund it. further ballooning the deficit and raise taxes to pay for a multi Trillion dollar dept.
now with quality, yes, we are both assuming what that would be like. it is also "more then possible" that the quality of care would decline.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
Like I said, I am all for changes...just not one extreme as UHC.
jlew...i have explained it over and over again. i agreed taxes will go up, of course they will...but it is in replacement of healthcare premiums. the way you word it makes it sound as if our costs would be even MORE, and while it's possible, it also isn't a done deal....and it may well not be the case, at all. all the 'rest' again, i and others have explained away. you don't want to see it, accept it, fair enough. and again, about the 'borrowing'...there wouldn't be a need for that. seriously, i couldn't care less if you disagree, but sometimes i think you simply completely disregard half the posts that run counter to yours. i am not going to rehash, it's all in here, in this discussion, a few pages back.......
as to quality of care....absolutely. again, the difference is...you continued to used declarative statements that it WILL decline, whereas i said that really there is no reason for that to occur, and that all possibilities are on the table. there's the difference, and to me, an important one in this, and most discussions. don't present things as *IS*....a definite, unless they ARE so, guaranteed.....or at the very least, extremely probable, and that has not been established, not by a long shot.
and i know you said 'you're all for changes'.......but you've not really suggested any. thus why i point out issues, right within the current system that you seem to think is 'just fine'....for the over 200 million americans with health insurance. just pointing out, even amongst that large group it is FAR from 'just fine'...not the highest quality of care, etc. if you cannot afford the care, there is no quality.......you're simply not getting it. and that could be you or me.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
jlew...i have explained it over and over again. i agreed taxes will go up, of course they will...but it is in replacement of healthcare premiums. the way you word it makes it sound as if our costs would be even MORE, and while it's possible, it also isn't a done deal....and it may well not be the case, at all. all the 'rest' again, i and others have explained away. you don't want to see it, accept it, fair enough. and again, about the 'borrowing'...there wouldn't be a need for that. seriously, i couldn't care less if you disagree, but sometimes i think you simply completely disregard half the posts that run counter to yours. i am not going to rehash, it's all in here, in this discussion, a few pages back.......
you agree taxes will go up? ok good. so its ok that I use the word WILL. see bolded above and you'll see why I responded the way I did.
as to quality of care....absolutely. again, the difference is...you continued to used declarative statements that it WILL decline, whereas i said that really there is no reason for that to occur,
actually there are plenty of reasons for that to occur. you simply don't believe them. that doesn't mean they don't exist. get it?
and that all possibilities are on the table. there's the difference, and to me, an important one in this, and most discussions. don't present things as *IS*....a definite, unless they ARE so, guaranteed.....or at the very least, extremely probable, and that has not been established, not by a long shot.
LOL you just said there IS no reason for quality of care to go down. when in fact, there are plenty.
and i know you said 'you're all for changes'.......but you've not really suggested any. thus why i point out issues, right within the current system that you seem to think is 'just fine'....for the over 200 million americans with health insurance. just pointing out, even amongst that large group it is FAR from 'just fine'...not the highest quality of care, etc. if you cannot afford the care, there is no quality.......you're simply not getting it. and that could be you or me.
but I have suggested several. I suggestted government subsidized healthcare benefit for children, the elderly, and the unemployed. as well as special circumstances that I'm not thinking of.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
jlew...i have explained it over and over again. i agreed taxes will go up, of course they will...but it is in replacement of healthcare premiums. the way you word it makes it sound as if our costs would be even MORE, and while it's possible, it also isn't a done deal....and it may well not be the case, at all. all the 'rest' again, i and others have explained away. you don't want to see it, accept it, fair enough. and again, about the 'borrowing'...there wouldn't be a need for that. seriously, i couldn't care less if you disagree, but sometimes i think you simply completely disregard half the posts that run counter to yours. i am not going to rehash, it's all in here, in this discussion, a few pages back.......
you agree taxes will go up? ok good. so its ok that I use the word WILL. see bolded above and you'll see why I responded the way I did.
as to quality of care....absolutely. again, the difference is...you continued to used declarative statements that it WILL decline, whereas i said that really there is no reason for that to occur,
actually there are plenty of reasons for that to occur. you simply don't believe them. that doesn't mean they don't exist. get it?
and that all possibilities are on the table. there's the difference, and to me, an important one in this, and most discussions. don't present things as *IS*....a definite, unless they ARE so, guaranteed.....or at the very least, extremely probable, and that has not been established, not by a long shot.
LOL you just said there IS no reason for quality of care to go down. when in fact, there are plenty.
and i know you said 'you're all for changes'.......but you've not really suggested any. thus why i point out issues, right within the current system that you seem to think is 'just fine'....for the over 200 million americans with health insurance. just pointing out, even amongst that large group it is FAR from 'just fine'...not the highest quality of care, etc. if you cannot afford the care, there is no quality.......you're simply not getting it. and that could be you or me.
but I have suggested several. I suggestted government subsidized healthcare benefit for children, the elderly, and the unemployed. as well as special circumstances that I'm not thinking of.
I have said this several times now.
jlew.......you make it sound like they will go up MORE than what we currently pay for healthcare right now, that was my point.
as to quality of care....again....been discussed, no reason....tho you like to say there is...but with no real substance of the whys. but feel free to repeat your same reasons, i can't be bothered refuting them, again...
and as to your suggestions, i have read them...but you have not suggested how we pay for them. THAt is what i questioned more than a few times. however, i realize this will just continue in round-robin fashion b/c while i read and absorb your posts...i see you convenienly 'forget'...or disregard....much of what is already posted. work may be slow, but i am too lazy to continually retypoe/rehash the same shit. i've already done plent y of it.
in reality, i have no need to 'convince' you of anything...i just thought it was a good discussion. i will await someone to actually bring some new/valid points to discuss rather than rehash the same comments. i leave you to it.
you keep on enjoying this 'just fine' healthcare system we have.....and i will continue to support change. NOT just for children, the elderly, the unemployed, but yea...for me too....b/c gawd forbid i or anyone else with health insurance manage to get really sick, and i'd see just how 'fine' the system is right now......
jlew.......you make it sound like they will go up MORE than what we currently pay for healthcare right now, that was my point.
how about the person who chooses not to use insurance, lives a healthy lifestyle, and for the most part, never goes to the doctor or hostipal? or the company that chooses not to help pay premiums?
as to quality of care....again....been discussed, no reason....tho you like to say there is...but with no real substance of the whys. but feel free to repeat your same reasons, i can't be bothered refuting them, again...
you can refute my reasons all you want. that doesnt mean they do not exist. there is no UHC. I can state what I think would happen, and you can state what you think would happen...and we both have an opinion. so again, there are many reasons as to why healthcare quality MIGHT go down. there are also many reasons why healthcare quality MIGHT stay the same.
and as to your suggestions, i have read them...but you have not suggested how we pay for them. THAt is what i questioned more than a few times. however, i realize this will just continue in round-robin fashion b/c while i read and absorb your posts...i see you convenienly 'forget'...or disregard....much of what is already posted. work may be slow, but i am too lazy to continually retypoe/rehash the same shit. i've already done plent y of it.
we will pay for them with higher taxes. like we do with any government service.
in reality, i have no need to 'convince' you of anything...i just thought it was a good discussion. i will await someone to actually bring some new/valid points to discuss rather than rehash the same comments. i leave you to it.
good discussion? what good discussion are you looking? its ALL or none with you. UHC or bust. anyone who disagrees is outright wrong.
you keep on enjoying this 'just fine' healthcare system we have.....and i will continue to support change. NOT just for children, the elderly, the unemployed, but yea...for me too....b/c gawd forbid i or anyone else with health insurance manage to get really sick, and i'd see just how 'fine' the system is right now......
I support change too. just not the one you propose. yet somehow thats not good discussion for you. its your way or its a useless discussion.
it isn't. nor is it necessary for you to continually make comments such as this.
i have been nothing but respectful in my disagreeance.....yet i am faced with innane comments like 'decides2dream do you live in america'...and other such BS.
we've said as much earlier. we completely disagree. i find a 'good discussion' involves more than that. as i said, when other new points...for or against, i don't care, get posted...of course i will read with interest, and perhaps respond if i have anything to add. i have nothing to add to this discussion with you simply b/c we both have covered it in depth with each other, we know each other's opinions and ideas on it, so what else 'good discussion' can be left between us on the topic? that was my point.
it isn't. nor is it necessary for you to continually make comments such as this.
i have been nothing but respectful in my disagreeance.....yet i am faced with innane comments like 'decides2dream do you live in america'...and other such BS.
we've said as much earlier. we completely disagree. i find a 'good discussion' involves more than that. as i said, when other new points...for or against, i don't care, get posted...of course i will read with interest, and perhaps respond if i have anything to add. i have nothing to add to this discussion with you simply b/c we both have covered it in depth with each other, we know each other's opinions and ideas on it, so what else 'good discussion' can be left between us on the topic? that was my point.
i look forward to reading new posts.........
but you are the one who keeps emphasizing that I shouldn't use words like WILL and IS....when the only thing I have guaranteed are higher taxes...feel free to answer this for me...
"how about the person who chooses not to use insurance, lives a healthy lifestyle, and for the most part, never goes to the doctor or hospital? or the company that chooses not to help pay premiums?"
as to quality of care....again....been discussed, no reason....tho you like to say there is...but with no real substance of the whys. but feel free to repeat your same reasons, i can't be bothered refuting them, again...
there ARE reasons......you dont agree with them...but they ARE there. so how can we have a discussion when you keep doing these things over and over?
Fixing the health care system will be expensive - and likely shared by public and private players. Here's a look at how consumers may be paying their share.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If President Obama has his way, health care reform will be finalized this year. Key Senate and House committees are planning to mark up legislation in June, and the House is aiming to vote on the issue by August.
And while the specifics of how to fix the nation's health care system are far from final, the debate over how to pull it off will turn on a key question: How to pay for it.
The total cost of overhauling health care is estimated at over $1 trillion, and the administration has made it clear that it doesn't want the overhaul to add to the already giant federal budget deficit.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the leading legislative players on the issue, last week laid out the likely elements in any health reform package. He also identified some of the main options for how to pay for it.
A system overhaul will guarantee coverage for most of the 47 million people currently uninsured, Baucus said at a Kaiser Family Foundation forum. And there's a good chance that a government-funded public health plan option will be added to the mix of plans offered by private insurers, Baucus said.
The final legislation is also expected to lay out requirements for minimum benefits; prohibitions against denying someone coverage due to a pre-existing condition; and guarantees for affordable, quality health care, he said.
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., another key player, echoed what Baucus outlined at a National Coalition on Health Care conference on Wednesday.
In terms of reimbursing doctors and hospitals, the focus for insurers is likely to shift from paying for the volume of services provided to reimbursements based on positive health outcomes.
When it comes to paying for all those changes, it'll be all hands on deck. Consumers, employers, health care providers and others in the industry will be asked to contribute. "We'll pay for it in a balanced way," Baucus said.
But "balanced" may not guarantee bipartisanship support in the House and Senate. In fact, deciding exactly who pays what - and figuring out how much reform costs can be taken care of through greater efficiencies and increased competition - will be among the hardest issues on which to find consensus.
Here are some of the leading ideas that could most directly affect health consumers' wallets:
Tax part of employer contributions to health insurance: Right now, if you get your health insurance at work, any money your employer contributes to pay for premiums is tax-free income to you.
It's the costliest tax benefit the government offers, reducing federal tax revenue by $226 billion last year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And it's a break that many officials, including Obama, say they are reluctant to change.
But tax and health care experts agree it's not only a costly incentive but one that offers the biggest tax break to high-income workers and to employees with the most expensive plans, which include union workers. Plus, they say, divorcing consumers from the true cost of their health care encourages them to buy more care than they might need and that, in turn, contributes to growth in costs.
Baucus has said lawmakers are considering limiting - but not eliminating - the tax-free exclusion in some way.
Limits might be based on the cost of a plan, an employee's income or some combination of the two. Another option would be to convert the exclusion to a tax credit or deduction. Lawmakers are also considering whether to grandfather in existing plans that unions won through collective bargaining agreements.
How much revenue can be raised is entirely dependent on the option chosen. There are no official estimates available from the Congressional Budget Office yet, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that capping the exclusion at the average cost of health insurance in 2009 ($5,370 for individuals; $13,226 for families) and adjusting that cap for inflation every year could raise $848 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Impose Medicare tax on state and local government employees: Currently the wages of some state and municipal employees are not subject to the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax that other workers and their employers pay. Lawmakers may decide to subject all such employees to the tax.
Tax sugary and alcoholic drinks: One option under consideration would standardize and increase the federal tax on alcohol. Another would impose a new federal tax on beverages sweetened with sugar, high-fructose syrup or other ingredients. Diet sodas and other artificially sweetened beverages, however, would not be taxed.
Change or eliminate Flexible Spending Arrangements: Currently, employees get a tax break for money contributed to FSAs. The amount they may contribute is unlimited, although the employer may set a limit. And the money may be used for a host of health-related expenses that insurance doesn't cover, as well as for dependent care expenses.
Lawmakers are considering either limiting how much money may be contributed or getting rid of the accounts entirely.
Modify Health Savings Accounts: Individuals with high-deductible health insurance policies may set up HSAs to which they and their employers may contribute money tax-free. Earnings on those contributions are tax-free, as are withdrawals used for qualified medical expenses.
Lawmakers may opt to limit the amount of money that may be contributed to HSAs or to boost the penalty for making withdrawals for non-medical expenses. They also may require third-party certification that the withdrawals were used for qualified expenses.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of millionaires who eat regularly at drive-thru McDonalds. :roll:
what, no half page link cut and pasted to do your talking for you? there must be a link out there somewhere proving that rich people dont eat fast food.
anyway I bet my life there are millionaires eating fast food.. and if not McDonalds, then they are stuffing their face with all sorts of bad expensive food. makes no fucking difference where it comes from. thanks for stopping by and adding so much to the discussion as usual
based on the above post a little bit of the 'pot calling the kettle black'.....
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
yes it does. how the fuck is there a stalemate in this country? stalemate in what? I'm a photographer by hobby...seems like every few months a new, more expensive, camera is released from Nikon amd Canon. there are new features, more megapixels, etc. these innovations are driven by profit.
same goes for the drug companies. they are constantly researching and developing new drugs to make money.
throw socialism into the mix and that stops.
and how is trying to create the next big social networking site NOT innovation? thousands of young web developers, right now, are brainstorming new and INNOVATIVE ways for you and I to socially network with family and friends.
by stalemate I mean that we are a creatively deprived culture right now, be it art, science or whatever this time, this generation lacks the creativity or innovation of the generations past.....
and just to add to your comment the innovations that the camera companies are making are minimal, especially compared to they innovations to photography 50+ years ago. Adding some megapixels to a camera.... not that innovative.... the new 5D MarkII by Canon or whatever it is added some megapixels and HD video..... that is merely repackaging in my opinion....not like the invented HD Video. Add most photographers will admit that their older film camera bodies are still better, digital is just more convenient and cost effective. All that said Canon has been using the same glass for lens and focsuing system for years.
I just luv reading the aruments and all the fervor over "governement run" and "socialism" yet no one says a peep about government run social security, government run medicare and medicaid, and my favorite government run military with an outrageous budget, I wont mention the billions handed out to private companies like AIG and the like.
I just luv reading the aruments and all the fervor over "governement run" and "socialism" yet no one says a peep about government run social security, government run medicare and medicaid, and my favorite government run military with an outrageous budget, I wont mention the billions handed out to private companies like AIG and the like.
then you havent been reading the entire thread. the utter failure of Social Security and the $30 Tillion dollar UNDERfunded medicare has been mentioned several times.
as well as the overall agreement the our military budget needs to be cut.
Apologies if someone has already asked this, I didn't make it all the way through the thread. Anyway, here is something I've been thinking about for awhile now. Maybe 50 years ago health insurance was just something one would buy to protect themselves from catastrophic events. Regular doctor visits were cheap and paid out of pocket by the patient. Somewhere along the line insurance companies started offering plans where they would pay for more than just catastrophic events and eventually over time it progressed to what we have now. (This is my understanding anyway).
Why can't we just do it this way, where the health insurance is what it was intended to be? Insurance against unforeseeable catstrophic injuries that may or may not happen in the future but not for regular check ups.
I pay house and auto insurance, but when I go to the gas station or have routine repairs done the insurance company usually doesn't get involved in those. Whereas when I go to the doctor for just routine check-ups the insurance does get involved. Why the disparity?
Apologies if someone has already asked this, I didn't make it all the way through the thread. Anyway, here is something I've been thinking about for awhile now. Maybe 50 years ago health insurance was just something one would buy to protect themselves from catastrophic events. Regular doctor visits were cheap and paid out of pocket by the patient. Somewhere along the line insurance companies started offering plans where they would pay for more than just catastrophic events and eventually over time it progressed to what we have now. (This is my understanding anyway).
Why can't we just do it this way, where the health insurance is what it was intended to be? Insurance against unforeseeable catstrophic injuries that may or may not happen in the future but not for regular check ups.
I pay house and auto insurance, but when I go to the gas station or have routine repairs done the insurance company usually doesn't get involved in those. Whereas when I go to the doctor for just routine check-ups the insurance does get involved. Why the disparity?
good points. but 50 years ago, it was cheaper to become a doctor and the quality of care was probably alot of "trail and error". now, the standards are ridiculously high and becoming (and being) a doctor is very expensive and time consuming.
whereas cars and home accident frequency has probably stayed constant from 50 years ago.
I dont have long links bolded and colored for you. I'm just making educated guesses
I just luv reading the aruments and all the fervor over "governement run" and "socialism" yet no one says a peep about government run social security, government run medicare and medicaid, and my favorite government run military with an outrageous budget, I wont mention the billions handed out to private companies like AIG and the like.
If you haven't heard a peep about privatizing social security, you must have not been paying attention. If you haven't heard bitching about government bailouts, you must be deaf. I'm just sayin'.
Half the government-run shit you mentioned above is underfunded to be point of certain bankruptcy. Sort of proving our point ... the government can't be trusted to run a Dairy Queen, much less health care for 350 million people.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I found a very interesting aricle titled GOING BROKE FOR DISEASE-"Sick Care" America Resorts to Borrowing Money to Pay for Disease
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Key concepts: Health, Disease and America http://www.naturalnews.com/026490_healt ... erica.html
I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!
I found a very interesting aricle titled GOING BROKE FOR DISEASE-"Sick Care" America Resorts to Borrowing Money to Pay for Disease
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Key concepts: Health, Disease and America http://www.naturalnews.com/026490_healt ... erica.html
This article doesn't seem to touch on government run health care as much as it is trying to push natural remedies. And I guess that's fine.
But I kind of took issue with some of the other articles on the site, pretty much preaching that chemotherapy is "quackery" and that cancer can be cured by eating fresh foods. I'm 26 years old and have keep a tremendously healthy lifestyle, but I still got cancer. I even tried holistic treatments for a short time before the tumor in my foot continued to grow. I went through some pretty intense treatments and because of those treatments I am cancer-free today.
People can believe what they choose to believe, but don't take everything you read as gospel.
"The dude abides. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' her easy for all us sinners."
Comments
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of millionaires who eat regularly at drive-thru McDonalds. :roll:
I don't think you're getting the point.
A. We're talking about population health here.
B. I said lifestyle "choice". Socio-economic status limits ones choices.
C. A poor man with good habits still has a lower life expectancy than a rich man with the same habits.
D. Poverty causes stress and stress lowers the immune system, leading to increased illness.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. But, lest you think I'm just relying on conventional wisdom (like some people in this conversation), let me quote one of the experts. (From, "Unnatural Causes: Is inequality making us sick?" Episode 1, "In Sickness & In Wealth")
what, no half page link cut and pasted to do your talking for you? there must be a link out there somewhere proving that rich people dont eat fast food.
anyway I bet my life there are millionaires eating fast food.. and if not McDonalds, then they are stuffing their face with all sorts of bad expensive food. makes no fucking difference where it comes from. thanks for stopping by and adding so much to the discussion as usual
ok, you are talking on a general scale, I got it. and I appreciate you quoting an "expert". I'm not sure I totally agree and I bet I can find another expect to refute this. I'll look around
regardless, eating habits play a HUGE role in health no matter what your financial status.
I think the late, great philosopher Christopher Wallace (aka Notorious BIG) would disagree with you, "Mo money, More problems."
christ. :roll:
it's been said over and over and over...right now...in our 'for profit' healthcare culture....the GOVERNMENT subsidizes a GREAt # of all these 'innovations' thru grants and funds....ALL the time. and the 'innovators' are the doctors and scientists, who still would be getting paid under a not-for-profit model...just no dividends off these innovations going into stockholder pockets. also, with the 'higher taxes'...yes....true....inb reality......may be the same or less out of pocket cost b/c NO more healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc.
suggesting we actually only cover *some* of our citizens as you suggest, actually would more than likely increase taxes for all, b/c where would these funds come from? whereas if we embrace a UHC model for all, remove the 'for profit' nature of our healthcare system, as mentioned, more than likely, keep costs the same.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
anyhoo, there was a blurb about medical costs. specifically cancer treatments, and it stated that 1 in 6 cancer patients CANNOT afford ther treatements - becuase even though they HAVE health insurance, the deductibles and copays are too crippling to afford. so yes......there's our wonderful health system at 'work'...works just fine until you actually need it. so even WITH insurance, the costs can skyrocket. that is not a system that *works*....and the sad thing is, you read about this shit ALL the time! so yea, it's NOT just about the poor or elderly, tho they are most at risk....but it's ALSO about you and me, and yea....we may well just become poor b/c this very thing could easily happen to any one of us.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
its monday morning, dont start getting all excited on me just yet
you have your opinion and I disagree. taxes would be raised far more then you seem to think mostly based solely on the fact that they have no regard for spending tax payer money efficiently.
bottomline...that is an ASSUMPTION on your part.
done correctly, there is no reason for that to occur.
and you can go on and on about track record, past failures, etc...i'm aware of all of it. none the less, it is certainly possible to do it correctly ad not cost more $$$. beyond that, even if taxes were raised, overall, if it absolutely guaranteed healthcare for ALL, for LIFE....and we wouldn't have ANyone who 'can't afford' healthcare and the treatments needed, you betcha...sign me up.
and really, what i was focusing on is your continual comments that innovation is linked soley to profit, and it just ain't so simple. that's all.
and no worries jlew...you have no ability to get me excited.......;)
also, just pointing out that your system would almost guarantee raises in taxes w/o benefit for all. i mean, how would you say you'd fund this healthcare for the elderly, unemployed, the poor...whoever else you say should ge governement healthcare, just not the rest of us? if we still operate in an overall for profit environment for the rest of us...where is the funding for this system you imagine? still would raise taxes. so yea....i'll take same or even slightly elevated taxbase along with healthcare for ALL, for LIFE...thanks.
already agreed to disagree with you, but on occasion...i still need to address/refute some of your posts, simply b/c i can't help myself.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I often support what I say with source material. Why are you pretending that's a bad thing? Maybe because I invariably prove you to be wrong?
My pleasure.
um its an ASSUMPTION on your part as well. WTF?? why are you right and I'm just guessing?
you are ASSUMING the government is going to do everything "correctly" ....hardly as safe assumption.
you're aware of it? are you sure?
with UHC you might guaranteed healthcare for all, but you aren't guaranteeing quality healthcare for all. not to mention, you can not guarantee taxing and spending wont go out of control.
I never said innovation was linked SOLELY to profits. I simply stated they are correlated. thats all.
i am not saying, outright, that my thoughts on the topic WILL occur.....whereas i see you, and others, continually say, outright, taxes WILL be raised, etc. you are not saying maybe, possibly...you are using the terminology that it WILL occur. same as many posts that say quality of care will not be maintained, etc. i have said, over and over.....that is it more than possible to maintain quality of care and keep costs level. i would think you would recognize the difference.
and i am not going back over this thread but within many of your posts you have mentioned without profit as a motivator there is no motivation for innovation. sorry for turning that around on you and saying that then menas you think it cannot exist without it. :roll: apparently my inference. bottomline, once again......THE innovators, the doctors and scientists, STILL GET PAID...and sicne the GOVERNMENT(s) here and abroad ALREADY fund so much of the INNOVATIVE RESEARCH already happening, i do not see why the removal of a for profit nature to the healthcare system would at all infringe on future innovations in the meidcal fields.
we just keep going round and round the same points. i have answered, and reanswered these questions numerous times. idk what else i can say to refute your claims. we go on about innovation, we go on about costs, we go on about quality of care,....ALL of which does not have to suffer within a UHC model, at all. yes, i admit it's possible we could choose to do a half-assed job, mor ethan likely b/c of those 'afraid' of UHC...or those who doom it to failure before it even starts....and so yes, it's possible it could be a disaster. however, again, if done RIGHT...which is very possible...there is NO reason why quality of care should suffer, why innovative research would cease nor that costs overall should rise,....all possible. that is all.
btw - did you see the post earlier....1 in 6 cancer patients WITH health insurance, can't afford their treatments due to deductibles and copays? hardly an isolated incident either. probably why many do look towards a new model of healthcare, b/c clearly this one isn't working even for those who DO participate and have insurance.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
its a 100% certainty that taxes will be raised if the US government adopts Universal Healthcare. I'll tell you how. right now my employer VOLUNTARILY pay 80% of my healthcare premium. they can choose at any time to stop doing this. same goes for me if I'm self employed. It would be my CHOICE to pay for healthcare insurance. say I make 10 million a year, health insurance wouldnt be necessary, I can afford to just pay cash for my bills. point being, its voluntary.
under your plan, you keep saying my healthcare insurance payment would be gone. thats true. but they would come back in the form of taxes. taxes that dont exist yet. and businesses would now be taxed to pay their portion....which is no longer voluntary.
and say I lose my job and dont pay taxes anymore. who picks up my portion of the heathcare bill? the government will borrow to fund it. further ballooning the deficit and raise taxes to pay for a multi Trillion dollar dept.
now with quality, yes, we are both assuming what that would be like. it is also "more then possible" that the quality of care would decline.
Like I said, I am all for changes...just not one extreme as UHC.
jlew...i have explained it over and over again. i agreed taxes will go up, of course they will...but it is in replacement of healthcare premiums. the way you word it makes it sound as if our costs would be even MORE, and while it's possible, it also isn't a done deal....and it may well not be the case, at all. all the 'rest' again, i and others have explained away. you don't want to see it, accept it, fair enough. and again, about the 'borrowing'...there wouldn't be a need for that. seriously, i couldn't care less if you disagree, but sometimes i think you simply completely disregard half the posts that run counter to yours. i am not going to rehash, it's all in here, in this discussion, a few pages back.......
as to quality of care....absolutely. again, the difference is...you continued to used declarative statements that it WILL decline, whereas i said that really there is no reason for that to occur, and that all possibilities are on the table. there's the difference, and to me, an important one in this, and most discussions. don't present things as *IS*....a definite, unless they ARE so, guaranteed.....or at the very least, extremely probable, and that has not been established, not by a long shot.
and i know you said 'you're all for changes'.......but you've not really suggested any. thus why i point out issues, right within the current system that you seem to think is 'just fine'....for the over 200 million americans with health insurance. just pointing out, even amongst that large group it is FAR from 'just fine'...not the highest quality of care, etc. if you cannot afford the care, there is no quality.......you're simply not getting it. and that could be you or me.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
you agree taxes will go up? ok good. so its ok that I use the word WILL. see bolded above and you'll see why I responded the way I did.
actually there are plenty of reasons for that to occur. you simply don't believe them. that doesn't mean they don't exist. get it?
LOL you just said there IS no reason for quality of care to go down. when in fact, there are plenty.
but I have suggested several. I suggestted government subsidized healthcare benefit for children, the elderly, and the unemployed. as well as special circumstances that I'm not thinking of.
I have said this several times now.
jlew.......you make it sound like they will go up MORE than what we currently pay for healthcare right now, that was my point.
as to quality of care....again....been discussed, no reason....tho you like to say there is...but with no real substance of the whys. but feel free to repeat your same reasons, i can't be bothered refuting them, again...
and as to your suggestions, i have read them...but you have not suggested how we pay for them. THAt is what i questioned more than a few times. however, i realize this will just continue in round-robin fashion b/c while i read and absorb your posts...i see you convenienly 'forget'...or disregard....much of what is already posted. work may be slow, but i am too lazy to continually retypoe/rehash the same shit. i've already done plent y of it.
in reality, i have no need to 'convince' you of anything...i just thought it was a good discussion. i will await someone to actually bring some new/valid points to discuss rather than rehash the same comments. i leave you to it.
you keep on enjoying this 'just fine' healthcare system we have.....and i will continue to support change. NOT just for children, the elderly, the unemployed, but yea...for me too....b/c gawd forbid i or anyone else with health insurance manage to get really sick, and i'd see just how 'fine' the system is right now......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
how about the person who chooses not to use insurance, lives a healthy lifestyle, and for the most part, never goes to the doctor or hostipal? or the company that chooses not to help pay premiums?
will they pay MORE?
you can refute my reasons all you want. that doesnt mean they do not exist. there is no UHC. I can state what I think would happen, and you can state what you think would happen...and we both have an opinion. so again, there are many reasons as to why healthcare quality MIGHT go down. there are also many reasons why healthcare quality MIGHT stay the same.
why is this so fucking hard to understand?
we will pay for them with higher taxes. like we do with any government service.
good discussion? what good discussion are you looking? its ALL or none with you. UHC or bust. anyone who disagrees is outright wrong.
I support change too. just not the one you propose. yet somehow thats not good discussion for you. its your way or its a useless discussion.
it isn't. nor is it necessary for you to continually make comments such as this.
i have been nothing but respectful in my disagreeance.....yet i am faced with innane comments like 'decides2dream do you live in america'...and other such BS.
we've said as much earlier. we completely disagree. i find a 'good discussion' involves more than that. as i said, when other new points...for or against, i don't care, get posted...of course i will read with interest, and perhaps respond if i have anything to add. i have nothing to add to this discussion with you simply b/c we both have covered it in depth with each other, we know each other's opinions and ideas on it, so what else 'good discussion' can be left between us on the topic? that was my point.
i look forward to reading new posts.........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
but you are the one who keeps emphasizing that I shouldn't use words like WILL and IS....when the only thing I have guaranteed are higher taxes...feel free to answer this for me...
"how about the person who chooses not to use insurance, lives a healthy lifestyle, and for the most part, never goes to the doctor or hospital? or the company that chooses not to help pay premiums?"
will they pay MORE?
and further more, you go on to say this...
there ARE reasons......you dont agree with them...but they ARE there. so how can we have a discussion when you keep doing these things over and over?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/28/news/ec ... 2009052804
Health reform: A $1 trillion question
Fixing the health care system will be expensive - and likely shared by public and private players. Here's a look at how consumers may be paying their share.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If President Obama has his way, health care reform will be finalized this year. Key Senate and House committees are planning to mark up legislation in June, and the House is aiming to vote on the issue by August.
And while the specifics of how to fix the nation's health care system are far from final, the debate over how to pull it off will turn on a key question: How to pay for it.
The total cost of overhauling health care is estimated at over $1 trillion, and the administration has made it clear that it doesn't want the overhaul to add to the already giant federal budget deficit.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the leading legislative players on the issue, last week laid out the likely elements in any health reform package. He also identified some of the main options for how to pay for it.
A system overhaul will guarantee coverage for most of the 47 million people currently uninsured, Baucus said at a Kaiser Family Foundation forum. And there's a good chance that a government-funded public health plan option will be added to the mix of plans offered by private insurers, Baucus said.
The final legislation is also expected to lay out requirements for minimum benefits; prohibitions against denying someone coverage due to a pre-existing condition; and guarantees for affordable, quality health care, he said.
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., another key player, echoed what Baucus outlined at a National Coalition on Health Care conference on Wednesday.
In terms of reimbursing doctors and hospitals, the focus for insurers is likely to shift from paying for the volume of services provided to reimbursements based on positive health outcomes.
When it comes to paying for all those changes, it'll be all hands on deck. Consumers, employers, health care providers and others in the industry will be asked to contribute. "We'll pay for it in a balanced way," Baucus said.
But "balanced" may not guarantee bipartisanship support in the House and Senate. In fact, deciding exactly who pays what - and figuring out how much reform costs can be taken care of through greater efficiencies and increased competition - will be among the hardest issues on which to find consensus.
Here are some of the leading ideas that could most directly affect health consumers' wallets:
Tax part of employer contributions to health insurance: Right now, if you get your health insurance at work, any money your employer contributes to pay for premiums is tax-free income to you.
It's the costliest tax benefit the government offers, reducing federal tax revenue by $226 billion last year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And it's a break that many officials, including Obama, say they are reluctant to change.
But tax and health care experts agree it's not only a costly incentive but one that offers the biggest tax break to high-income workers and to employees with the most expensive plans, which include union workers. Plus, they say, divorcing consumers from the true cost of their health care encourages them to buy more care than they might need and that, in turn, contributes to growth in costs.
Baucus has said lawmakers are considering limiting - but not eliminating - the tax-free exclusion in some way.
Limits might be based on the cost of a plan, an employee's income or some combination of the two. Another option would be to convert the exclusion to a tax credit or deduction. Lawmakers are also considering whether to grandfather in existing plans that unions won through collective bargaining agreements.
How much revenue can be raised is entirely dependent on the option chosen. There are no official estimates available from the Congressional Budget Office yet, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that capping the exclusion at the average cost of health insurance in 2009 ($5,370 for individuals; $13,226 for families) and adjusting that cap for inflation every year could raise $848 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Impose Medicare tax on state and local government employees: Currently the wages of some state and municipal employees are not subject to the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax that other workers and their employers pay. Lawmakers may decide to subject all such employees to the tax.
Tax sugary and alcoholic drinks: One option under consideration would standardize and increase the federal tax on alcohol. Another would impose a new federal tax on beverages sweetened with sugar, high-fructose syrup or other ingredients. Diet sodas and other artificially sweetened beverages, however, would not be taxed.
Change or eliminate Flexible Spending Arrangements: Currently, employees get a tax break for money contributed to FSAs. The amount they may contribute is unlimited, although the employer may set a limit. And the money may be used for a host of health-related expenses that insurance doesn't cover, as well as for dependent care expenses.
Lawmakers are considering either limiting how much money may be contributed or getting rid of the accounts entirely.
Modify Health Savings Accounts: Individuals with high-deductible health insurance policies may set up HSAs to which they and their employers may contribute money tax-free. Earnings on those contributions are tax-free, as are withdrawals used for qualified medical expenses.
Lawmakers may opt to limit the amount of money that may be contributed to HSAs or to boost the penalty for making withdrawals for non-medical expenses. They also may require third-party certification that the withdrawals were used for qualified expenses.
based on the above post a little bit of the 'pot calling the kettle black'.....
by stalemate I mean that we are a creatively deprived culture right now, be it art, science or whatever this time, this generation lacks the creativity or innovation of the generations past.....
and just to add to your comment the innovations that the camera companies are making are minimal, especially compared to they innovations to photography 50+ years ago. Adding some megapixels to a camera.... not that innovative.... the new 5D MarkII by Canon or whatever it is added some megapixels and HD video..... that is merely repackaging in my opinion....not like the invented HD Video. Add most photographers will admit that their older film camera bodies are still better, digital is just more convenient and cost effective. All that said Canon has been using the same glass for lens and focsuing system for years.
then you havent been reading the entire thread. the utter failure of Social Security and the $30 Tillion dollar UNDERfunded medicare has been mentioned several times.
as well as the overall agreement the our military budget needs to be cut.
Why can't we just do it this way, where the health insurance is what it was intended to be? Insurance against unforeseeable catstrophic injuries that may or may not happen in the future but not for regular check ups.
I pay house and auto insurance, but when I go to the gas station or have routine repairs done the insurance company usually doesn't get involved in those. Whereas when I go to the doctor for just routine check-ups the insurance does get involved. Why the disparity?
good points. but 50 years ago, it was cheaper to become a doctor and the quality of care was probably alot of "trail and error". now, the standards are ridiculously high and becoming (and being) a doctor is very expensive and time consuming.
whereas cars and home accident frequency has probably stayed constant from 50 years ago.
I dont have long links bolded and colored for you. I'm just making educated guesses
If you haven't heard a peep about privatizing social security, you must have not been paying attention. If you haven't heard bitching about government bailouts, you must be deaf. I'm just sayin'.
Half the government-run shit you mentioned above is underfunded to be point of certain bankruptcy. Sort of proving our point ... the government can't be trusted to run a Dairy Queen, much less health care for 350 million people.
for the least they could possibly do
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Key concepts: Health, Disease and America
http://www.naturalnews.com/026490_healt ... erica.html
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
This article doesn't seem to touch on government run health care as much as it is trying to push natural remedies. And I guess that's fine.
But I kind of took issue with some of the other articles on the site, pretty much preaching that chemotherapy is "quackery" and that cancer can be cured by eating fresh foods. I'm 26 years old and have keep a tremendously healthy lifestyle, but I still got cancer. I even tried holistic treatments for a short time before the tumor in my foot continued to grow. I went through some pretty intense treatments and because of those treatments I am cancer-free today.
People can believe what they choose to believe, but don't take everything you read as gospel.