The U.S. Health Care Debate

[Louis VI the Fat]

Most Insurance policies do not include coverage for elective abortions, only to save the life of the mother from impending doom. The new single payer trainer would. Democrats say "It would be taking away coverage if we didn't include it" they are lying here as well. BTW

Yes, healthcare reform is the holocaust.

Well that is a bit harsh of mine. I would say that abortion is constitutional. One has to live with it as much as many on the left will have to learn to cope with constitutional firearms. But this is not how a moderate state ought to function.
Considering that many have profound moral objection to abortion, I would prefer a system that gives people a way out. Where there is compulsory military service there usually is, and ought to be, a way to accomodate those with grave moral objections too.



Actually, if I were the Democrat strategy department, I'd use this as leverage.

I'd propose a bill that a) destroys indulgence of industry by Washington and stimulates competition through consumer choice, and b) includes abortion in compulsory coverage. Then, at some point, I'd grant b to the Republicans in exchange for their support for a, that is, a functioning market in healthcare.
Then the hardright - the GOP - can present abortion as a victory to their base, and the centrist right - the Democrats - have it their way too: market, consumer choice, competition, and an end to bureaucratic industry pork and Washington-protected monopolistic practises.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yeah, and proper healthcare reform will ensure that children with Cancer ALWAYS get treated.

If abortion is what you are going to focus on, you're seriously missing the point.

No, You're missing the point. If they want to start a fight with every interest group who argues with the purist left then they will fail at reform. This administration is simply making enemies. We need to keep fighting until they take the most upsetting parts of the bill out. Make friends in this. Everyone wants to see insurance companies stabbed and bleeding in the streets, but we don't want the government to take their place and have no recourse. Weaken insurance companies, open costs up to the free market, provide portable insurance incentives, reduce canadian drug restrictions, allow groups of people to create their own pools. If you can do this, you will have succeeded in reform. Don't just push for euthanasia to control elder care and government paid abortion on demand - that isn't the kind of reform most people want or need - that is special interest attempting to hijack legitimate issues.

After this we can work on universal coverage and it will be easier

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yeah, and proper healthcare reform will ensure that children with Cancer ALWAYS get treated.

If abortion is what you are going to focus on, you're seriously missing the point.

Yes, healthcare reform is the holocaust.

Well that is a bit harsh of mine. I would say that abortion is constitutional. One has to live with it as much as many on the left will have to learn to cope with constitutional firearms. But this is not how a moderate state ought to function.
Considering that many have profound moral objection to abortion, I would prefer a system that gives people a way out. Where there is compulsory military service there usually is, and ought to be, a way to accomodate those with grave moral objections too.



Actually, if I were the Democrat strategy department, I'd use this as leverage.

I'd propose a bill that a) destroys indulgence of industry by Washington and stimulates competition through consumer choice, and b) includes abortion in compulsory coverage. Then, at some point, I'd grant b to the Republicans in exchange for their support for a, that is, a functioning market in healthcare.
Then the hardright - the GOP - can present abortion as a victory to their base, and the centrist right - the Democrats - have it their way too: market, consumer choice, competition, and an end to bureaucratic industry pork and Washington-protected monopolistic practises.

Leave it out of governemnt insurance except in extreme circumstances and allow people who want it to buy supplemental policies. Keep my money out of elective abortion.

Do you want it to cover plastic surgery? Not unless it is to repair function lost from burns, car accidents, etc JUST LIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES DO IT. The more coverage, the more prices will go up in new areas - the more prices go up in unneccessary areas , the more money for healthcare is diverted to waste or unethical use. That does not control cost, nothing in this expansive program does.


Look on the birghtside everyone - we are arguing about a real issue, unlike that retarded gay-marriage nonsense.

[Xiahou]

The answer is that Obama doesn't want to do that. Number two, and number three

Obama is going to stop Washington-protected monopolies. And use Washington to create competition.

Want market and choice? Support reform, to put an end to lucrative state-protected monopolies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The health care fight has turned ugly, fast. And lies about reform are spreading via anonymous email chains. Below are the real facts you need to know.


Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back


Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!


The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."1 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.2



If you'd like to read the actual section of the legislation that spawned these outrageous claims (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) for yourself, here it is. It's pretty boring stuff, which is why the accusations that it creates "death panels" is so absurd. But don't take our word for it, read it yourself.





Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!


The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.





Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!


The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.6 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.





Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!


The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.7 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.8





Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!


The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12

I love it when "debunking" sites get their facts wrong. There's something so deliciously ironic about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, You're missing the point. If they want to start a fight with every interest group who argues with the purist left then they will fail at reform. This administration is simply making enemies. We need to keep fighting until they take the most upsetting parts of the bill out. Make friends in this. Everyone wants to see insurance companies stabbed and bleeding in the streets, but we don't want the government to take their place and have no recourse. Weaken insurance companies, open costs up to the free market, provide portable insurance incentives, reduce canadian drug restrictions, allow groups of people to create their own pools. If you can do this, you will have succeeded in reform. Don't just push for euthanasia to control elder care and government paid abortion on demand - that isn't the kind of reform most people want or need - that is special interest attempting to hijack legitimate issues.

After this we can work on universal coverage and it will be easier

No, you are missing the point. You can have universal coverage now by making the State a health insurer. If every sallaried American is in the pool costs will go way down, once people realise that the State-run hospitals wont check their insurance or credit rating before treating them, and they wont get kicked out after two weeks they'll drop their useless private insurer. Then un-profitable companies will go bust, the rest will pick the people who want to go private and not wait in line.

The average American, the State and the Employer will all pay less because your corrupt Victorian system will no longer be a black hole sucking in money. Oh sure, waiting times will go up, but that will be because the system has to take more capacity.

Once you have universal coverage under one policy Medicare and Medicaid will become irrelevant. They can be rolled up, reducing wastage. At the same time, the State can reel in lawsuits against State-paid and funded doctors. People are also much less likely to sue someone if they know that person is being paid with their tax-dollars anyway.

Why you people have such a blind spot on this issue I don't know, from this side of the pond it looks universally weird in America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, you are missing the point. You can have universal coverage now by making the State a health insurer. If every sallaried American is in the pool costs will go way down, once people realise that the State-run hospitals wont check their insurance or credit rating before treating them, and they wont get kicked out after two weeks they'll drop their useless private insurer. Then un-profitable companies will go bust, the rest will pick the people who want to go private and not wait in line.

The average American, the State and the Employer will all pay less because your corrupt Victorian system will no longer be a black hole sucking in money. Oh sure, waiting times will go up, but that will be because the system has to take more capacity.

Once you have universal coverage under one policy Medicare and Medicaid will become irrelevant. They can be rolled up, reducing wastage. At the same time, the State can reel in lawsuits against State-paid and funded doctors. People are also much less likely to sue someone if they know that person is being paid with their tax-dollars anyway.

Why you people have such a blind spot on this issue I don't know, from this side of the pond it looks universally weird in America.

The law of large numbers has a cost decreasing affect, yes. An effect that will be easily overcome by non-existant underwriting guidelines and millions more non-paying named insureds.

Credit related Insurance scores help me pay less for my insurance and guarantee the insurance company money to pay claims. A dollar is a dollar and if Americans believe that this plan will lower their cost of living, they are either fools or unemployed.

We simply need to know what is being paid before a procedure, a way to shop around and to feel the effects or irresponsible treatments that don't work on our pocketbooks. This plan is smoke and mirror parlor games designed for a purpose entirely opposed to increasing the amount of income we keep. Most americans are complaining about the amount of money that they pay in health care. Democrats have responded with a plan to take even more money from us and spend it on non-contributing citizens.

Our country is designed as a lab with many different compartments - each one closer to the direct needs of the people than the central government. We have the ability to test health care plans on a State by State basis. Our governement refuses to facilitate this. Those that want reform want it for very different reasons than those they are supposed to represent.

[Tribesman]

Most americans are complaining about the amount of money that they pay in health care. Democrats have responded with a plan to take even more money from us and spend it on non-contributing citizens.

Since you pay for the non-contributing citizens already your arguement falls apart.
If other countries can pay for full universal healthcare and get far better medical care results for less than half the money the US pays for its jumbled part universal healthcare, then why woud America not be able to get the same results in full universal healthcare for the same level of funding as other countries do?

We simply need to know what is being paid before a procedure

That sounds like rationing , I thought that was what the protesters were complaining about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The answer is that Obama doesn't want to do that. Number two, and number three

Well he's said he wants to do that, and the Obamacare bill will set up regulations so that you must get government approved insurance, and can't continue to get your current insurance, if your current insurance doesn't fulfill every little government mandate.

CR

[Tribesman]

Well he's said he wants to do that, and the Obamacare bill will set up regulations so that you must get government approved insurance

Wow regulation of the insurance industry, scary stuff.
Not as scary as the results of the experiments the free marketeers had with their non-regulation ideals.

[Idaho]

Most Insurance policies do not include coverage for elective abortions, only to save the life of the mother from impending doom. The new single payer trainer would. Democrats say "It would be taking away coverage if we didn't include it" they are lying here as well. BTW

You yanks are obsessed with abortion. I really don't understand it.

[tibilicus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8200844.stm

This made me laugh.The "Brits on the news" they're referring to is some obscure Tory MEP, even then only Fox news would give him the time of day, no surprise there..

BTW for any Americans, is Fox news really your most watched news channel? If so it explains a lot. I mean, after watching it for about 10 minutes I was literally in hysterics, half the stuff being broadcast didn't even have any truth to it! Although unsurprisingly that follows the same trend as many Murdoch owned news outlets..

[ICantSpellDawg]

You yanks are obsessed with abortion. I really don't understand it.

Obviously neither do the Democratic planners.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Since you pay for the non-contributing citizens already your arguement falls apart.
If other countries can pay for full universal healthcare and get far better medical care results for less than half the money the US pays for its jumbled part universal healthcare, then why woud America not be able to get the same results in full universal healthcare for the same level of funding as other countries do?


That sounds like rationing , I thought that was what the protesters were complaining about.

When you shop for insurance or a car (for example), are they rationing that policy or product because there is a price tag and legitimate reason to shop around? No. I don't fully understand your insinuation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8200844.stm

This made me laugh.The "Brits on the news" they're referring to is some obscure Tory MEP, even then only Fox news would give him the time of day, no surprise there..

BTW for any Americans, is Fox news really your most watched news channel? If so it explains a lot. I mean, after watching it for about 10 minutes I was literally in hysterics, half the stuff being broadcast didn't even have any truth to it! Although unsurprisingly that follows the same trend as many Murdoch owned news outlets..

Again, I listen to WNYC/NPR lately as my primary news source because of my absurd commute AND read BBC. For fire fuel I read drudge. I don't like agreeing with people, so why would I watch Rupert Murdochs retirement plan?

The fact is that my girlfriend liks Fox and I don't mind it for a laugh at Democrats expense now and then. It is a channel for entertainment and indignation. I'm glad that it exists, becuase what would the alternative be? CNN and MSNBC, neither of which are the most objective or fair.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When you shop for insurance or a car (for example), are they rationing that policy or product because there is a price tag and legitimate reason to shop around? No. I don't fully understand your insinuation.

In every other Westernised country in the world there is a principle that healthcare should be available to 100% of the citizenry, if not the population. Most do this be providing a tax-funded Health Service which is free, or near-free, at the point of source. Or, they supplement the system with legally mandated "National Insurance", essentially more tax.

As a result, the State controls costs by refusing to finance things which are inflated in price. It is the multiplicity of choice, and the poor state of coverage that have driven up costs in the US. If all funding came through the State then it would not matter what a procedure cost, because you have already paid for the right to have access to healthcare. You don't then have to pay again when you go to the hospital.

Americans pay twice for a third-rate system; if they can afford it. That's just crazy

In Britain we pay once, and if we lose our jobs we still get our broken legs fixed, our jabs, our new Kidneys, or our brain-surgery.

Hell, we even have prescription charges on the way out in the not too distant future.

Sure it might not be perfect, but I'd rather be ill here than America, and so would a lot of the Americans here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8200844.stm

This made me laugh.The "Brits on the news" they're referring to is some obscure Tory MEP, even then only Fox news would give him the time of day, no surprise there..

BTW for any Americans, is Fox news really your most watched news channel? If so it explains a lot. I mean, after watching it for about 10 minutes I was literally in hysterics, half the stuff being broadcast didn't even have any truth to it! Although unsurprisingly that follows the same trend as many Murdoch owned news outlets..

Sadly, almost all of America's broadcast news is slanted and distorted. FOX is slanted to our political right just as badly as CBS, NBC, and CNN (USA) are slanted left. It gains it's "most watched" status among cable news because the other networks divide up the pie of "lefty" news consumers.

We really have no news source that simply chronicles events. This amplifies the inevitable distortions already present because of the "man bites dog" factor that is inimical to news in the first place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In every other Westernised country in the world there is a principle that healthcare should be available to 100% of the citizenry, if not the population. Most do this be providing a tax-funded Health Service which is free, or near-free, at the point of source. Or, they supplement the system with legally mandated "National Insurance", essentially more tax.

As a result, the State controls costs by refusing to finance things which are inflated in price. It is the multiplicity of choice, and the poor state of coverage that have driven up costs in the US. If all funding came through the State then it would not matter what a procedure cost, because you have already paid for the right to have access to healthcare. You don't then have to pay again when you go to the hospital.

Americans pay twice for a third-rate system; if they can afford it. That's just crazy

In Britain we pay once, and if we lose our jobs we still get our broken legs fixed, our jabs, our new Kidneys, or our brain-surgery.

Hell, we even have prescription charges on the way out in the not too distant future.

Sure it might not be perfect, but I'd rather be ill here than America, and so would a lot of the Americans here.

Cost of Healthcare and "Free Access" to the uninsured are two seperate issues. The United States has a vibrant society, but we do not believe that people who work hard "owe" those who do not. Health care should be affordable and sensibly priced, that will increase ease of access. The government should create the pool and regulate insurance practices to increase transparency. This should not result in a tax increase or univerasal coverage to those who refuse to pay for it, those people must rely on charity or learn to work for what they need.

New entitlements will not reduce cost, nor will they contribute to the kind of society that we are trying to build - one with citizens who are self-sufficient and attain for themselves their needs and desires without a parasitic relationship.

The majority of US citizens have health care. Our governemnt should help us keep it and make it more affordable, not write in new promises of money that they have no right to.

[Tribesman]

The United States has a vibrant society, but we do not believe that people who work hard "owe" those who do not.

Which is why you pay so much in taxes for so little result. You pay a fortune for Medicare and again for Medicaid.
You pay federal taxes and state taxes for programs that are in serious need of reform and object to reform because you claim they are going to make you pay tax....which you already pay to a system badly in need of reform.
Its why your arguement makes no sense whatsoever .
Who in their right mind would object to reforms of a system where you pay much more tax money than anywhere else and get inferior results by claiming that it would mean they are going to end paying more and getting less.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cost of Healthcare and "Free Access" to the uninsured are two seperate issues.

No, they aren't; and it's "Free at-point of access", that's different. You have a State healthcare system, tax-funded, which you also pay for. Most people try to manage the cost through insurance, many don't bother. Universal insurance would require (nearly) all Americans to pay, so there would be fewer uninsured.

Almost all people have "uninsured" dependants, parrents, children, nephews, nieces.

The United States has a vibrant society, but we do not believe that people who work hard "owe" those who do not.

1. UnChristian. The original objection to biological Darwinism was the natural leap to social Darwinism. Shame the one got dropped and the other picked up.

2. I hope neither you nor your friends lose their job when their company goes bust, or God forbid, their insurance company go bust.

Health care should be affordable and sensibly priced, that will increase ease of access.

Hasn't worked yet, and that's never going to include the poor, who probably still pay taxes.

The government should create the pool and regulate insurance practices to increase transparency. This should not result in a tax increase or univerasal coverage to those who refuse to pay for it, those people must rely on charity or learn to work for what they need.

Not everyone can get a job. University graduates in a recession, for example.

I'm not just talking about tax increases, I'm talking about not needing private insurance.

Try to grasp that concept.

The majority of US citizens have health care. Our governemnt should help us keep it and make it more affordable, not write in new promises of money that they have no right to.

18% of the population under 65 don't. That doesn't include the pensioners.

[Husar]

Well, who cares about those 18% as long as they belong to the other 82%.
That's ignoring the point that had been made that even those with insurance cannot be sure their treatment will actually be covered.
When I had some minor "problem" with my nose the doctor said he could fix it but my insurance wouldn't cover it and that it would cost 90EUR per side, that was preferable over him doing it first, then telling me I'd owe him 180EUR because the insurance refused to pay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, who cares about those 18% as long as they belong to the other 82%.
That's ignoring the point that had been made that even those with insurance cannot be sure their treatment will actually be covered.
When I had some minor "problem" with my nose the doctor said he could fix it but my insurance wouldn't cover it and that it would cost 90EUR per side, that was preferable over him doing it first, then telling me I'd owe him 180EUR because the insurance refused to pay.

Right, so you can probably theoretically double that.

Can we ask what the "problem" was? You don't have to say, but it's a bit hard to judge your anecdote without the context.

[Lemur]

Here's a must-read article about how we arrived at the current system.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense.

Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Xiahou, CR - I must admit to not having read the original proposed bills. Nor do I think I ever will - there is a limit to my interest in this subject. I shall not pursue the subject any further.

Sadly, almost all of America's broadcast news is slanted and distorted. FOX is slanted to our political right just as badly as CBS, NBC, and CNN (USA) are slanted left. It gains it's "most watched" status among cable news because the other networks divide up the pie of "lefty" news consumers.

Nah. CBS, NBC, CNN are moderate centrist.
Fox is populist hardright, but claims centrist right.

Pravda claimed to represent the left. And insited that other media were the bourgeois, capitalist, right.

Such is the nature of the extremist media.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's a must-read article about how we arrived at the current system.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense.

Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.

I agree with that premise wholeheartedly. We should be paying out of pocket for 30 min doctors visits and annual physicals. We should reserve insurance for massive losses. The government should help us tear the insurance companies away from minor services because they are the ones elevating a minor 20 min check-up to 500 dollars for someone to touch you a few times and make small talk. Add to that a wait on average of 40 mins and 30 bucks out of pocket. Absurd. The system needs to be changed, Everyone on this site admits that.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after.

This is an important part to remember. When a massive organization with no feeling for cost came into the mix, the system changed and warped pricing. The government spigot was turned on an the premium to get a suckle at the teet skyrocketed. After all, "there are customers with an erratic money hemmoraging insurance company (US GOVT) to assist instead of you, unless you pay more."

Thus the problem was compounded by government intervention and prices were further skewed (to the insurance companies chagrin)

[Husar]

Right, so you can probably theoretically double that.

Can we ask what the "problem" was? You don't have to say, but it's a bit hard to judge your anecdote without the context.

Oh, something up there is a bit thick and he said he could thin it out, whether that will cure anything he could not say 100%(I went there for several small problems, my nose isn't straight, it's often full etc.). Nothing serious, but yeah, I go to doctors for nothing serious sometimes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, something up there is a bit thick and he said he could thin it out, whether that will cure anything he could not say 100%(I went there for several small problems, my nose isn't straight, it's often full etc.). Nothing serious, but yeah, I go to doctors for nothing serious sometimes.

Interesting, because my mother recently had her nose straightened, inside, it was on the NHS, so no up-front cost. It took a couple of months from refferal to go in and have it done, but from there everything went fine, follow up was prompt etc.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting, because my mother recently had her nose straightened, inside, it was on the NHS, so no up-front cost. It took a couple of months from refferal to go in and have it done, but from there everything went fine, follow up was prompt etc.

Medicare and medicaid are scheduled to bankrupt the nation and their answer is to inflate the plans further and make us more reliant on them. You don't live here, Philip. Nobody trusts these morons to fix the system.

You might like democrats because they are pro-abortion and love gays, but the reality is that their plans are moronic. They arn't old labour, they are in charge of the most powerful country on earth. The game is a bit bigger and so is the population.

Europeans who have the luxury of governing themselves don't know what it is like to live in a never ending beurocracy of 300 million people with totally different cultural outlooks. I know that you are trying to solidify the EU's octosquid control, but until then you are just large and small states compared to our system. California has an economy larger than Italy.

Please get off of your high horses, explaining how your tiny and homogeneous populations control themselves. Our immigrant and entitled population dwarf yours and we have to find a different way to provide health care for everyone. We want to break that cycle and get everyone working for what should be theirs. We simply can't keep writing rich peoples checks, we will go bust. There is another way and our ancestors crossed the atlantic to chart it out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Medicare and medicaid are scheduled to bankrupt the nation and their answer is to inflate the plans further and make us more reliant on them. You don't live here, Philip. Nobody trusts these morons to fix the system.

"Obamacare" doesn't go far enough, because it should scrap Medicare and Medicaid and replace them with a free-at-point-of-source system. The absurdity of State-run Hospitals billing the State is brought about ecause you and others have an absurd reaction to genuine State-run medicine.

Oddly enough, the same arguements were trotted out sixty years ago here. The Government simply forced the change, and the doctors just had to put up with it. There's a famous cartoon of doctors in front of the Health Secretary, as Gladiators, with the caption, "We who are about to die salute You."

You might like democrats because they are pro-abortion and love gays, but the reality is that their plans are moronic. They arn't old labour, they are in charge of the most powerful country on earth. The game is a bit bigger and so is the population.

I don't like Democrats, I'm not pro-abortion and I'm indifferent to homosexuals. The first two are well known on these boards, I think.

Yes, the plan is bad, halfarsed rather than moronic though. The "game" however, is exactly the same. The "game" is saving lives, and that is measured in individuals. I consider universal healthcare a matter of concience.

Europeans who have the luxury of governing themselves don't know what it is like to live in a never ending beurocracy of 300 million people with totally different cultural outlooks. I know that you are trying to solidify the EU's octosquid control, but until then you are just large and small states compared to our system. California has an economy larger than Italy.

Neither am I pro EU integration, also well known.

You're right though, my country is only 60 million people, one of the most populous in Europe and it only contains three distinct native populations, two of which intermittently hate the other.

Please get off of your high horses, explaining how your tiny and homogeneous populations control themselves. Our immigrant and entitled population dwarf yours and we have to find a different way to provide health care for everyone. We want to break that cycle and get everyone working for what should be theirs. We simply can't keep writing rich peoples checks, we will go bust. There is another way and our ancestors crossed the atlantic to chart it out.

Your current system costs 18% of GDP, ours costs 9.2, public and private.

As to "tiny", the UK population is still 1/5 of the US population, and I fail to see how greater numbers make a National Health Service so impossible.

So, get off your own High Horse and face up to the fact that our system is cheaper, better and provides universal coverage.

[Xiahou]

Well, it sounds like I'm in the majority.

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

The study goes on to say:

This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees.

Again, I agree. Before I'd consider any government-run plan I'd like to see them come up with a way to fix Medicare and Medicaid so they won't bankrupt the country, like they're going to now. If they can't manage those two plans without blowing up the national debt, I don't trust them to manage a public plan that would be available to everyone. Additionally, any government-run plan should be adopted by members of congress as their own. If they wouldn't accept it, how can they foist it on us?

Naturally, the better idea would be for no government-run option at all. Government has made a complete mess of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the mortgage industry, and so on. There's really got to be a better way.

[Tribesman]

Well, it sounds like I'm in the majority.

Which is irrelevant unless Ramunsen also asked the respondants if they knew what the bill was that they are opposed to .
As most people seem to have not read any of the proposed legislation and are basing their outrage on misinformation and outright lies their opinions on the possible passage of actual proposed legislation are completely meaningless.