Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. Of course the current legislation is not fully consistent with his pledge but it's not too far off from his goals. I'm not expecting it to perfectly align with his pledge to get the 47 million uninsured insured, reduce insurance costs, and increase the quality of care.
2. No, it's not good enough. I'm concerned with the start date and the possibility of weak or no public option. I'm not confidant they're doing a good job of soliciting advice from countries with successful universal health care systems either. I would like to see pay-roll option for employers who wish to provide their employees health care through universal healthcare. I'm willing to give the bill a chance because this is a complex problem that can only be solved through a progressive process and solution.

can you define these countries, and please try to use countries that would face problems similar to ours, and not ones with homogeneous populations, or ones that have no major government outlays for things that our country obviously does.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Tell me the number you believe is acceptable for creating universal health care and what said universal health care entails.

In a previous thread, I have indicated that, if you can lower costs and ensure that my quality of care does not decline, I will pay my current amount of premium plus an additional 10% (an increase of approximately $400 per year) in order to guarrantee basic (now there's a loaded term) medical services for every legal u.s. citizen.

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

If we do nothing shit is going blow up Joe so lets not make the government the only dirty player that's going to or capable of blowing shit up. If you're going to accuse me of faith leaping perhaps it's time for you to pour us some tea. Shall we use the pot or the kettle?

The government is not the only dirty player. I have never asserted that it was - Further, when considered in full, I don't think Schneed 10, CRedskinsRule or Slinging Sammy33 has either. Inherent in their arguments that private parties can affect change is that they have not and that any solution must find a way to affect this. Your determination that only government intervention through massive wealth transference can solve the problem has led you to ignore that point

As to kettles and pots - I have never asserted that, at their base, my philosophic, economic or spiritual arguments spring from something less than a leap of faith. In fact, I embrace that gap and stare into the chasm often to better understand myself, the world around me and the limitations of my humanity. Can you admit the same and define the leap you take? Or is still your position that your belief system is fully contained and provable at is inception.

I have been at the table since my 30's. Since we first began engaging, however, you have pretended that the table did not exist.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?

Quality of care will decrease because:

1) Wait times for appointments will get much longer, wait times for procedures (like knee replacement) will get much much longer. The supply of physicians and facilities is not increasing, but demand for these services will. That inevitably results in a logjam.

2) Reimbursement to hospitals and physicians from commercial insurers (people who currently have insurance) will get phased downward over time to a more homogenous rate. Right now, physicians practice where the money is, in other words they locate their offices where most patients have good insurance. With so many previously uninsured patients gaining coverage, and with reimbursement homogenizing across payers, doctors will migrate to areas where most people are located. If you make a decent living and your neighborhood reflects that, then some of your physicians will be leaving the area. This will happen over time, not suddenly.

3) Over time, changes to the reimbursement structure will incent hospitals to treat minor issues as opposed to major, equipment-intensive illnesses. They will not have the same incentive to invest in state of the art technology. You'll have fewer choices when it comes to destinations to receive the state of the art care for the most serious of problems.

And many others.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?

I have fully explained why I believe the quality of my health care will diminish in the "New Health Care Thread". http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...th-care-7.html

Does your 85% include those who choose to be uninsured even if financially able but unwilling to pay (and, as "financially able" as those who are able because they chose to pay for insurance as opposed to the mortgage - I am referring to the significant portion of young healthy, productive adults who choose not to purchase health insurance)? Does it include only those currently not on medicaid? Must it increase benefits for those on medicaid or will it simply be enough to expand the benefits provided medicaid to cover those not currently covered?

I mean we can go around on this all day, there have been at least three threads and pages and pages of posts discussing all these issues and more without any general consensus being reached. It's a knotty problem and one that shouldn't be rammed through in a 1000 page bill on one month review.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?

Hell we could get 50% of that done by forcing the people who can afford coverage to go out and buy it.

[dmek25]

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

Most people who volunteer their time do so because it brings them self satisfaction of helping others.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

can you define these countries, and please try to use countries that would face problems similar to ours, and not ones with homogeneous populations, or ones that have no major government outlays for things that our country obviously does.

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Quality of care will decrease because:

1) Wait times for appointments will get much longer, wait times for procedures (like knee replacement) will get much much longer. The supply of physicians and facilities is not increasing, but demand for these services will. That inevitably results in a logjam.

2) Reimbursement to hospitals and physicians from commercial insurers (people who currently have insurance) will get phased downward over time to a more homogenous rate. Right now, physicians practice where the money is, in other words they locate their offices where most patients have good insurance. With so many previously uninsured patients gaining coverage, and with reimbursement homogenizing across payers, doctors will migrate to areas where most people are located. If you make a decent living and your neighborhood reflects that, then some of your physicians will be leaving the area. This will happen over time, not suddenly.

3) Over time, changes to the reimbursement structure will incent hospitals to treat minor issues as opposed to major, equipment-intensive illnesses. They will not have the same incentive to invest in state of the art technology. You'll have fewer choices when it comes to destinations to receive the state of the art care for the most serious of problems.

And many others.

Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

I know people love using the Canadian system as an example, and it may be one to model, but I still ask for an example where the country has similar demands and structures to the US. If you are going to include countries who fall under our defense shield, as Canada does, then please realize that their Government's obligations are substantially less. and if we are going to do this type thing, and significantly reduce defense spending, then lets start by doing the reductions and getting our budget in line.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Nice, but irrelevant dodge. Unless you want to plead ignorance to the effects that the diversity of the US culture has on healthcare demands.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

[CRedskinsRule]

Saden, I thought you liked numbers, and yet you seemed to ignore some basic math that I posted. Remember this is using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -

The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.

The current discretionary budge = 1,182billion dollars.

** assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending

11,600/200 = 53 years.

add in a projected deficit of 400billion this year,

then we would be adding 200billion to our national debt yearly. And that is BEFORE any new healthcare.

so, again, I will say, how do you Saden, who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.[/QUOTE]