Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Heh. If you are going to compare Health Care among “Liberal” Countries, why don’t you use Finland instead of Canada? The Finnish System is both profitable to the Medical Profession AND available to everybody FREE.

Do some research. FINLAND.

Canada has only recently started to use MRIs at a level that was common about 8 years ago in the US. How does this meet with liberal expectations about health care?

The problem is, 8 years later, 45 million (and growing) Americans still can’t afford it if they need it. Every Canadian can.

I really don’t know what the problem is with ensuring that every American is provided with a basic level of healthcare. Those who can afford it, can spend whatever they want on top of it, or opt out of it, or whatever. It’s a win-win.

Nice artical that isn’t too partisan.
France has an excellent healthcare system. I had to go to the hospital there, in a small sewer town in Southern France and it was a very clean place, with caring professionals and good technology.

Singapore has excellent healthcare too. It’s clean, high quality, and much less expensive than the US.

This is my favorite healthcare story. This guy needs a heart operation, but can’t afford the $200,000 price tag in the US. So he flies to India to get it done. Total cost including round trip tickets and a side trip to the Taj Mahal: $10,000. Sweet!

One more US industry lost to outsourcing…

We have to pay for our own Health insurance. Recently I had to have a CT Scan.
It had to be pre-approved by my insurance.
They approved it.
I got to the hospital to have it and had to sign a paper explaining the bill. The insurance approval meant that they would only pay about half, which is in their contract I guess. Considering I had not met my deductible yet… half meant what I have to pay. About $700.
It makes me want to get one of those family discount plans instead of full blown insurance. We have considered those savings plans but decided no, since you lose the money if you do not use it in a year.
What I hate about all of it is that one has to be part of some kind of program in order to get a discounted price. A program that profits from us to help medical providers profit from us.
If I had to have that scan without insurance it would have been over $1300!! For an XRAY!
Of course we would have had that money in 2 months if it weren’t for the insurance premiums.
We have one of the best insurance plans money can buy and even it pays for less and less each year as the premiums go higher and higher.

I could not get the meds my doc prescribed because my insurance doesn’t have a ‘deal’ with that drug company. $3/pill if I wanted to pay myself. I got the other company’s pill. $1/pill because it is a 30 day supply and the co-pay is $30. I can not get more than that at one time.

The insurance companies tell us how wonderful they are because they can discount things for us while at the same time making it that much harder to reach the deductible so that they actually start paying for something.

Something has to be done about the networks these providers have established.
The uninsured should be charged at the same rate these providers receive OR not be charged and charge these companies that we are paying premiums to MORE.
The discounts just make the charges go up and put medical care that much farther out of reach for those with no insurance.

Ahh bugcrazy. Isn’t that the beauty of the free market? Healthcare providers can charge what the market will bear, and it bears even more when the insurance companies start amortizing the costs among all their policy holders. And I’d also be asking why that pill costs $3 in the first place.

This is everything Democrats were talking about in the run up to the presidential election. Medical insurers colluding on prices; inefficient administration running up to $25 per paperwork transaction; hiding doctor’s malpractice records and driving up their insurance costs; drug companies gaming the patent laws so they can charge more; and on and on. So many plans we had for reducing healthcare costs.

Pardon me if I don’t feel sorry for you guys. You made your choice.

AP,

Maybe so but I don’t recall my premiums going in the other direction when the Dems were in charge.
I don’t think this can be blamed on one party or the other.

When Dems in California stopped price fixing by insurance companies, premiums immediately dropped 20%. At the national level, IIRC, the growth of healthcare costs slowed during the Golden Age of Clinton - then picked up again over the last few years.

I agree that Dems didn’t do enough in the 90s (though not for lack of trying). But the Republican Party hasn’t done anything. In fact, they’ve given the insurance and pharmaceutical industries a free hand.

Aldous,

Finland’s health care is NOT free. The Finnish pay an exorbitant amount of taxes, some of which goes to the healthcare system. They also have a population of 5 or 6 million. I frankly don’t want to have my taxes increased to finance the healthcare system for 293 million other folks.

Well said, AP.
All 3 posts.

I just don’t see how conservatives can preach “culture of life” out of one side of their mouths then dis the concept of universal healthcare out of the other. Nor do I see how they can gush over the “free market” one minute, then turn right around the next and complain that they were unfairly gouged when they were sick and at the helpless mercy of that market.

Ah, its nice to be a Liberal! Clear thinking, honest caring, and no hypocrisy required…

GK,
Typical Republican idealogue. The Finnish tax rate includes way more than the package behind healthcare. France has practically the same tax bracket as the United States. Go write to your congressman and tell him why investing in healthcare is much better than spending it on a freaking missle.

By the way,
The US and South Africa are the only two of all industrialized countries that do not provide some sort of healthcare for all citizens. That depends though if you want to call South Africa. If that is the case, it shows how the US seems to be the last country to do something right as evidenced by being so late in juvenile executions being ruled as cruel and unusual punishment.

If universal healthcare is such a great idea, then why don’t those who support it lead by example?
Pay the extra taxes and show how great “free” healthcare really is.
The holier than thou michael moore once said ALL Americans should pay around 70% of their income to the government in taxes, but do you think he backs that up by paying 70% now?
How many of you “supporters” pay more in taxes to support your social programs right now? How many of you go to healthcare facilities and “adopt” somebody who needs help with their bills?
Hypocrites.

Mr. Holsclaw
“you are going to think someone ought to pay for it.”

I think you should have said:
you are going to think someone ELSE ought to pay for it.

Interesting article sir, thanks.

The health care debate is a proxy fight about government involvement in the economy and equality.

I experienced public health care in Scandinavia and public heath care (the County Hospital) in Wisconsin. They are very similar in the level of care you get without spending much money. The difference is that in the U.S. some people get a higher level of care than others, while in Scandinavia everybody gets just about the same.

Health care is never enough. Who is too healthy? Some way must be found to ration it. In general Americans ration by money (or luck), while Europeans ration by waiting time (or luck). Most well off Europeans supplement their national health care with private insurance and/or private care. In fact, health care in the U.S. and Europe is very much comparable, both for rich and poor, despite the heated rhetoric to the contrary on both sides.

Health care is tied up in tort reform to a much greater extent than people like to think. In most parts of Europe, your ability to sue is severely constrained or limited to actual economic damages. In almost every country but the U.S. the loser is often required to pay the reasonable legal fees of the winner. This limits entrepreneurial lawsuits. This means that European doctors can practice a more reasonable type of medicine. This is a good thing about European medicine. A lot of the extravagances and defensive tests are just not done. Since Euro life expectancies are generally higher than ours, it evidently doesn’t hurt to forgo those extra MRIs and CAT scans. The bad thing about European medicine is that some routine problems just won’t be cured. If you have a non-life threatening knee problem, for example, you are likely to limp for a really long time.

Let’s not get too excited about either system. If we could find one that had American technologies and waiting times with European attitudes toward care, it would be a really good thing.

kctim,

Just paying more money in taxes voluntarily does nothing. More likely than not it will help fund the creation of yet another missile. People want the government to create a nation-wide healthcare plan so that they can be ASSURED their extra contributions will be going towards the program they intended.

KcTim,
What the hell are you blabbing about? That was a fairly incoherant post. Who said anything about Michael Moore? I don’t mind paying higher taxes for the common good and not for a bloody missle.

Jack,
Thanks a lot for a fair post by a Moderate Republican. I am glad that there are sane Republicans out there.

It is saying something about American Values when they cannot have free healthcare but can spend a hundred billion at a drop for a war.

$100,000,000,000 for WAR!!!! And Congress just voted down a Bill to increase funds for Veterans Hospitals!!!

A New Source of Energy? A Cure for Cancer? Better Education? Hell NO!!!!

No wonder the World thinks Americans are Warmongers. US Kids may not read but at least our guns are always loaded…

Wow, talk about rhetoric…

AP, Aldous, etc…

There are specific reasons why healthcare is high in the US. The ‘free market’ system is not one of them, the healthcare system hasn’t been a free market system for decades. Government regulations that cause 1/3 of the doctor’s time to be spent filling out forms and insurance companies taking up another 1/3 lead to very high costs. Coupled with high insurance policies that doctors need to prevent losing everything from malpractice lawsuits and you can see that there is no way a reasonable price will be paid for healthcare.

Then, throw in those who have healthcare paid for them and how they go to the hospital for every ache and pain, draining resources and time away from those that need it more and our taxes go up to help pay for it.

I’ve yet to know any single person who was denied entry into a hospital because they couldn’t afford to pay the bill. The left in this country make us sound like uncaring selfish bastards because we don’t have a ‘universal health care program’ but the truth of the matter is that we do a pretty good job with what the current political climate will allow. Once the two parties can stop trying to put stakes in each other’s hearts and actually sit down and find a resolution to the problem then maybe we will start to see an improvement in the situation.

Until then, most of the responses I’ve seen to this thread are just helping perpetuate the problem. It’s always politics over solutions…

If universal healthcare is such a great idea, then why don’t those who support it lead by example?

Um, OK. Just like roads, education, and defense, healthcare sounds like something I’d chip in a few extra bucks for.

Jack, if Euro and US healthcare systems are so similar, let’s just go ahead and adopt the Euro system. If I’m not willing to limp for a long time,I can shell out the dough to get it fixed immediately.

Rhinehard, 45+ million people only go to the hospital when their condition becomes an emergency. At that point it costs far more to fix than it would have to prevent.

That emergency care gets factored in to the prices we pay for our insurance, and even into our state and local taxes. We’re paying for it one way or another. I’d rather pay for cheaper preventative care.

I blogged about Democrat’s health care ideas here before. The funny part is, just like Clinton did with balancing the budget and welfare reform, we ripped off some Republican ideas because they’re good. Now Republicans are against their own ideas just because Dems are proposing them. Partisan indeed.

All,

I lived in the UK for 4 years and Holland for 5. The taxes (VAT; value added tax) in both countries (and almost all other Euro countries for that matter) were/are astronimical. The same goes for Japan (lived here 3 years).

OK, OK. Not ALL of the taxes go to health care, you’re right. The money also goes to welfare and dole (unemployment) recipients and also those who take from the system by constantly playing it.

Adrienne:

“Ah, its nice to be a Liberal! Clear thinking, honest caring, and no hypocrisy required…”

On what planet?

Chi Chi, that adds nothing to the discussion except to perpetuate a negative view that many already have of conservatives. How about just sharing your thoughts on health care.

Zeek
I understand your point but you know very well that even with that plan, those who claim to care will still not give more. They don’t do it now and they won’t do it then. They are talking about everybody elses money.
Its not about care, its all about votes and control.

dg
“What the hell are you blabbing about?”
Nothing at all, my bad. Your right, I’m wrong. You win, I lose.

AP
“Um, OK. Just like roads, education, and defense, healthcare sounds like something I’d chip in a few extra bucks for.”

Then why don’t you do it now? Go find somebody and give them so much money each month for their healthcare bills. It will make you feel good and it won’t be extorting more money from the rest of us.
Just quit forcing everybody else to support and fund your vote getting feel good ideas that do more harm than good.

American Pundit:

“Chi Chi, that adds nothing to the discussion except to perpetuate a negative view that many already have of conservatives. How about just sharing your thoughts on health care.”

That is exactly my point! Adrienne, and many others, commonly make extremist, partisan remarks. If you have read any of my other posts on a variety of topics, both here and at the liberal site, you would know I abhor the partisanship. It is destructive, but an all to common reason why we can’t seem to get past dead center on virtually any issue brought forth. Eventually, conservatives and liberals are going to have to get past the petty partisan politics and get to good public policy. Otherwise, issues as important as health care will continue to sink lower into the partisan, “elect me” political abyss.

Then why don’t you do it now? Go find somebody and give them so much money each month for their healthcare bills.

Because I don’t get anything out of that scenario. If you think that’s how the system works, no wonder you’re against it. I would be too.

Chi Chi: Thanks. That’s a much better response. And I agree to an extent. But there are a few real ideological differences on which neither side will compromise - and rightly so, I think.

“Because I don’t get anything out of that scenario. If you think that’s how the system works, no wonder you’re against it. I would be too.”

AP, I know how the system is supposed to work.
What do you mean by saying you don’t get anything out of that scenario?
You essentially want everybody to support the ones who can’t afford their medical bills, right?
That is the same thing as you supporting one person or family who can’t afford their medical bills. If you don’t believe you get anything out of that scenario then why should everyone else believe they will with universal healthcare?

Granted, you are but one person and only you would probably see the end result but what about the other 50 million kerry voters? Combined, the end result would be known by all.

So I ask, IF universal healthcare is such a great idea and IF you guys really do care about everyone, then why don’t you lead by example?

If you really care, why must YOU “get anything out of it?”
I thought it was about THEM.

Hey Chi Chi:

“I just don’t see how conservatives can preach “culture of life” out of one side of their mouths then dis the concept of universal healthcare out of the other. Nor do I see how they can gush over the “free market” one minute, then turn right around the next and complain that they were unfairly gouged when they were sick and at the helpless mercy of that market.”

Did you miss that bit? Got any answers?

AP

You pointed to a problem with Euro health care in America. You would be willing to pay a little more so that you could have your routine aliment cured faster. And presumably you would be able to pay. The next step is to ask what about the poor?

It is a common thread in liberal politics to up the ante. Sometimes this can be a good thing. In health care, maybe not. Health care has to be rationed because it is in limitless demand. The premature baby, the young woman with a rare disease, even the old guy who wants to live a few more years can such up hundreds of thousands of dollars each.

The Euro system, with their less well-developed networks of lawyers and patient advocates, can make such choices – for now at least. We can’t or won’t. The best system would be Euro medical attitudes with U.S. technology and waiting periods. Euro systems are willing to ration. The worst system would be Euro medicine with American medical attitudes, American legal system and American checkbooks.

That is what I fear we would get.

“Got any answers?”

I do.
They do it for the same reasons liberals preach about personal freedoms, choice, rights and free-thinking then “dis?” the concept of personal responsibility. They will “gush” how they support these one minute then turn around and strip them from us the next because THEY believe it is for the greater good.

They do it in order to get more votes to support their own agendas with total disregard to whats fair to all individuals.

Kctim,
I think that has more to do with “shit happens” than “personal responsibility.” You remind me of a Hannity cheerleader.

I agree Donny. Libertarian-style answers are always no answers at all.

Ok, thats the kind of comment to expect I guess.
I should know by now not to ask or propose anything that has a shred of common sense or fairness attached to it.
We know what you should think and whats best for you so sit down and shut up.
What a great motto to have.
And its worked so well in elections to.

kctim, don’t go get all huffy, now. Perhaps I should have been more precise: When it comes to things like health care Libertarian answers are always no answer at all.

Kctim,
I believed what I believed before I even knew what the Democratic Party stood for. A universal healthcare is common sense. You preach the right to live but without adequate health care? If you don’t see the illogical nature of this then there is not one point to argue with you. If not a universal healthcare, maybe a few of those punk politicians will be able to do policies that won’t get us screwed over by the HMO’s and doctors and we wouldn’t be demanding this. Apparently, the Libertarians believe that the middle class should be driven into poverty at the expense of retarded politicians. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly with me. I pay my taxes. They should pay “personal responsibility” to us on governing our healthcare. Your logic doesn’t fly.

Adrienne
LOL!!! I love chatting with you on here. My last name is Huff. Good one.

We can’t have a national health care system until we address related issues such as liability and access.

In countries with national health systems, you have limited rights to sue. Someone hits you with his car. Your broken leg costs nothing because the health care takes care of it. If you are unemployed, you don’t miss any work. What can you recover in terms of economic damages? Nothing. I like that system, but most Americans won’t.

Then how much health care is enough? Healthy people should avoid doctors but doctors see thousands of people who only think they are sick. They are never happy with the results. What about obese people or smokers? Their bad habits cost the system millions of dollars. Do we make care conditional on them doing better?

Do we cover reconstructive surgery? How about plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes? How much is Michael Jackson’s monstrous countenance worth? Do we pay for Viagra?

All of us have a different idea in mind when we think of health care. It is abundantly clear that we cannot simply extend the American health care system to those parts of our population that don’t have health care. No country in the world offers anything like that, and with good reason.

Don’t over estimate the Euro systems or underestimate ours. People who have experienced Euro care (and are not currently arguing about health care with Americans) are generally less enthusiastic about the level of care they have received. Going over to a national health system entails costs (and not only monetary ones.) If you don’t like how your HMO treats you, you won’t like national health care. They are run along the same principles, where experts decide what medicines and procedures you need.

DG
“You preach the right to live but without adequate health care?”

Do you mean ME or republicans? I am pro abortion, pro death penalty and pro euthanasia.
I say the right to live as you please, within the laws. If a person wishes to buy a pack of cigs or some beer instead of paying a monthly premium, thats their business. Not yours or mine.
If you wish to support people, that is your choice.
But it is not fair for you to force your beliefs and morals onto me and extort money from me in order to support what you believe is right.

I really don’t know much of what libertarians believe, sorry.

“They should pay “personal responsibility” to us on governing our healthcare. Your logic doesn’t fly.”

Yes, its always somebody else should pay. I understand your logic.

My logic says “give me the freedom of choice to be responsible for myself and family and let ME govern my OWN healthcare in the way I see best.”

You should have the choice to be dependent on the govt for everything and I should have the choice to be responsible for myself.

Kctim,
Why do I get the feeling that you have little common sense and have some kind of axe to grind? Based on a psychoanalysis of you, you seem to have had overprotective parents. The bitterness just reaks. Why do I say that? Because you didn’t address any of my points!

Okay, on the first line. I apologize for labeling you with typical Republicans. I will say this much though. You talk about personal responsibility but are all for abortion. I smell cognitive dissonance.

Politics is about imposing beliefs on others and I am sorry but without conviction in government or a cause; you are going to impose beliefs regardless. You aren’t a libertarian. You are an anarchist. A libertarian knows better.

This is what I mean. You just seem like you can’t use your brain. You are preaching personal responsibility but you are saying that politicians shouldn’t be responsible and obligate a cause to the people that they should somehow regulate how much control the HMO’s and doctors have over us? Huh, what. In your world, we put all of the responsibility on the people but the politicians can be reckless. In case you didn’t know, the more people get screwed, the more a demand is made. How about you start preaching a responsibility on politicians as well and demands for a national health care service wouldn’t be made. Again, your views are destructive.

I am not wanting the government to be responsible for everything but I do want myself and society to live in accordance to happiness. In case you didn’t know, people in Canada and Europe are a lot happier than Americans, in general. Healthcare has a little bit to do with that.

“You talk about personal responsibility but are all for abortion”

Yes. If a lady gets pregnant, it should be her choice on how to handle it. Not yours or mine. She has to take the “PR” to either care for it or deal with killing the baby. You or I should not be forced to support her decision in any way.

“You are an anarchist”
HAHA, thats a new one, congrats. I’ve been called a liberal, republican, democrat, libertarian and now an anarchist. I love it.

“you are saying that politicians shouldn’t be responsible and obligate a cause to the people”

No. I am saying politicians should not obligate YOUR cause onto the people.

“In case you didn’t know, people in Canada and Europe are a lot happier than Americans”

Really? I have lived in canada, germany, England and italy and didnt get that impression at all. In fact, other than the buildings, cars, food and a few mannerisms, there really isnt much difference between being over there and here (politics aside of course)
Which parts have you been to that you observed this?

Thanks for the free analysis, but you should quit trying to read so much into my posts in order to find something wrong. If you don’t agree with me, fine. Life goes on and hopefully I’m dead before your new govt takes hold here in the US. I still believe in the Constitution.

PS
My parents were 14 and 15 years old when I was born. They less overprotective and more of buddies. Who do you think I drank my first beer with?
Easy on the pre-judging, name-calling and sarcasm friend, this is a great place for us to learn from one another.

Adrienne:

“I just don’t see how conservatives can preach “culture of life” out of one side of their mouths then dis the concept of universal healthcare out of the other. Nor do I see how they can gush over the “free market” one minute, then turn right around the next and complain that they were unfairly gouged when they were sick and at the helpless mercy of that market.”

Did you miss that bit? Got any answers?”

Sorry it took so long to re-post. Do you see what you are doing? Pointing fingers, calling names, making accusations. Don’t answer the question by saying, “Oh yeah? Well, he did this and he did this and he did this.” That doesn’t contribute to an answer, it only perpetuates the question or the arguement. What I am driving at is not the eminent domain of liberals or Democrats, nor is it the birthright of concervatives. Each side is just as guilty as the other. Both sides are truly equal in this vein. Occassionaly, an original, intelligent thought is presented. Who so ever presents it had better hide their head, because the other side is comin’ with a vegeance not to discuss alternatives or find common ground and build, but to character assasinate, call names, point fingers, misinform, and do what ever else they can to discredit the presenter, while cleverly hiding the fact that they have no alternative to offer other than the status quo.

This is the precise reason that I left a “leadership role” in my local and state Republican party. I’m fed up with the road blocks to what everyone knows is good public policy, but, because it’s not their name on the bill, they throw rocks at it until it dies. Then, after a suitable period passes, they introduce a similar idea that is just different enough for them to say “No, No, this is original thought.”

I will hereby tell all politicians the same thing I have told my kids for the past 24 years. “You had better learn to share and play nice, or, in the end, no body will play with you.” Politicians better learn to get things done or they face another 1992 barn burning.

Chi Chi,

“You had better learn to share and play nice, or, in the end, no body will play with you.”

Unless, that is, they have no choice.

Donny,

“Politics is about imposing beliefs on others”

No, politics is a power play where you win by forwarding your own career and helping your constituents. The idea of “beliefs” is just a ploy to gather votes.

“In case you didn’t know, people in Canada and Europe are a lot happier than Americans, in general. Healthcare has a little bit to do with that.”

Mmmm… I’d have to say this is relative. If you’re rich, you’re better off in America. If you’re poor/middle-class, you’re better off in Canada (possibly). Happiness is driven by more than just healthcare you know.

“In case you didn’t know, the more people get screwed, the more a demand is made.”

This makes no sense. Either explain yourself or omit this sentence.

“How about you start preaching a responsibility on politicians”

Come on, we all know that’s never going to happen…

Don:

I am not wanting the government to be responsible for everything but I do want myself and society to live in accordance to happiness. In case you didn’t know, people in Canada and Europe are a lot happier than Americans, in general. Healthcare has a little bit to do with that.

If the goal is to be happy we have some huge changes to make.

Filipinos are the happiest among Asians, and one among the happiest people in the world despite the many problems they have to face every day, a study released by Malacañang said Wednesday. This conclusion is based on the study done among 50 countries worldwide by the World Values Survey.

In the survey Filipinos placed number six among the top 10 happiest nations that indicated they are “very happy about their lifestyles.â€

Venezuelans came out the happiest with a rating of 55 percent, followed by Nigeria, 45 percent; Ireland, 42 percent; Iceland, 42 percent; the Netherlands, 40 percent; the Philippines, 40 percent; Australia, 39 percent; the United States, 39 percent; Turkey, 39 percent; and Switzerland, 38 percent.

The least happy people are the Bulgarians, 7 percent; Armenians, 6 percent; Romanians, 6 percent; Russians, 6 percent; Ukrainians, 5 percent; Belarus­sians, 5 percent; Mol­do­vans, 4 percent; Lithuanians, 4 percent; Estonians, 4 percent; Slovaks, 4 percent; and Latvians, 3 percent.

http://www.globalpinoy.com/news/national/02242005/natl2.htm

Most of the people at the bottom were raised with universal health coverage. Those at the top don’t seem to have a pot to pea in or a window to through it out of. So it looks like it’s not money, power or healthcare that makes us happy.

Hmmm,

Craig

A possible compromise.
I really believe in capitalism and the free market. The problem with health care is that all sides are not playing fair. The government needs to step in with regulation that will decrease cost and increase access. Bush’s proposal to place a cap on malpractice claims is a very good piece of legislation, and it needs to pass.

About health insurance. What if the government came up with three health care plans that all insurance companies had to offer. Such as a 70, 85, and 100% coverage. The government would specifically state what is covered on these health care plans in simple terms. The insurance companies try to make things as complicated as possible so that they can make money on the misinformed public. The government would also have a price index for each geographical location stating how much money hospitals can charge for certain procedures. Both the hospitals and the insurance companies deserve reasonable returns on their investment.(such as 10%, not the 30-40% profits we have seen some health care companies obtain.) It really disgusts me to see a 400 page manual that someone has to read to understand what is covered and what is not for an organ transplant. It also disgusts me to see a 6k bill that is reduced to 2k by the insurance company, those who are uninsured get stuck with the bill for 6k.

This takes us to our next issue about making sure all americans have coverage. Most people think that the only way to accomplish this is to move to a socialized system. What if we gave businesses a tax advantage to offer health insurance. For every dollar a company spends on health insurance, we could offer $1.25 in the form of a tax write off. This would decrease company cost, and keep the taxpayers from the financial burden of shouldering all of the costs.

This is just a thought, there has to be some sort of compromise. Health care needs to be affordable and accessible to everyone, and right now it is not. For the most part, I’m not for the government increasing the rules and regulations that all ready burden industry, but when the industry does not play fair, the government has an obligation to step in and try to help it’s citizens.

Let me know what ya think,
Ivan

Ivan:

I think we should have a “two tiered” system. Leave the current system alone, and create a system of “goverment hospitals” to treat those not able to afford healthcare. You might have to wait in line for a heart transplant like in Canada but there would be health care for all.

In smaller towns the goverment could contract with local hospitals.

If we could recover the fraud out of medicare/medicaid, and limit liability claims we could probably pay for it.

Craig

Thought I would drop by with some stats to help you guys duke it out:

Canada pays 11% of it’s GDP for healthcare, and covers everyone, and Canadians have a longer lifespan, and better medical recovery rates overall. The U.S. pays 14% of it’s GDP for healthcare, with 40% uninsured, we have a shorter lifespan, with poorer medical outcomes for the majority, but with the minority receiving extremely advanced care, which regardless, does not appreciably lengthen their life compared to the Canadian system. (a few additional years ON AVERAGE)

Now, there are some specific diseases where the American system appreciably lengthens lifespan, however, there are some specific diseases where the Swedish sytem does a much better job. Many Americans travel to specific research countries for specific diseases (such as cerebal palsy, ALS, etc).

Carry on,
Julia

In addition, the major factor in health care costs is the stock market. The insurance industry puts your premiums in the market, and they have no long term stability plan. So when the market tanks, your premiums rise. The market is offender #1, not legal fees (which represent less than 5% of your bill anyway).

Okay, since everyone “American” wants to jump on my ass; let me get started. By the way, it is not a surprise. You know if you criticize this country, the likely response will be either “You are Un American”, “love it or leave it”, “you are ignorant”, “you don’t know what you are talking about” or anything else. It is the typical kneejerk reaction that I am more than accustomed too so my feelings never get hurt off of it. Let’s be realistic and set goals that will advance society, as opposed to making everyone fend for themselves.

Kctim,
I guess I have read enough of your posts to know that debating you is pointless. Your responses tend not to answer my questions, rather you shrug it off and put in something that doesn’t even address any points. With that being said, it is pointless to even start trying but I will address your logistics. I stand firm. You are a closet Anarchist. You’d rather have this country and it’s people turn into something akin to India rather than help solve some problems. That is pretty anti-government in my book.

Jay Leno’s Top Ten on Kctim’s belief of “Personal Responsibility”

10. Pedophilia
“It is the child’s ‘personal responsibility’ to not talk to strangers even though a pedophile was stalking the kid so it is the child’s fault.”
9. Social Security
“It is the elderly person’s ‘personal responsibility’ to find out about mutual funds, 401ks, the stock market and planning their retirement. I don’t care if they work as a construction worker until 92. It was their personal responsibility. If they starve, atleast I still have the Internet. Don’t you dare raise my taxes.”
8. Government Law Enforcement
“It is the person’s ‘personal responsibility’ to arm themselves with AK-47’s, shot guns, grenade launchers and plutonium if a burglarer were to break into your house. We wouldn’t need the police any longer. I don’t care if you don’t want a gun. It is your fault if you get killed.”
7. Health Care
“You should be paying whatever you are willing to pay for. The politicians shouldn’t do anything to regulate it. Don’t you dare enforce your beliefs on me. You shouldn’t have beliefs in anything that the government wants to be involved with as far as helping out the common man.”
6. Education
“I don’t want the government to teach my child. I don’t want the government imposing their beliefs that 1+1=2. I want to teach addition and subtraction my way as it is my ‘personal responsibility’ to do so.”
5. Alcohol
“There shouldn’t be a drinking age. I think that alcohol should be served at public schools. It is the child’s ‘personal responsibility’ to know that drinking alcohol is unhealthy.”
4. Pets
“I shouldn’t have to buy my cat any food. It is the cat’s ‘personal responsibility’ to catch a bird every few days and eat it. Meow Mr. Morris the Cat.”
3. Outsourcing
“It is fine with me if a company wants to outsource jobs. As long as I am not the one being screwed over, it is everyone else’s ‘personal responsibility’ to make sure they don’t have a job that will be outsourced.”
2. War
“It is everyone’s ‘personal responsibility’ to flee from a country that we are about to start a preemptive war with. I have a website. One shirt says ‘Why not support our war as the Iraqi’s love us’ and the other; it says ‘Nuke Fulluja’ I hope those Frenchies run when we are ready to launch a bomb on them.”

AND NUMBER ONE

(DRUM ROLLS)

1. Terrorism
“I don’t have any sympathy for anyone who died on 9-11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was their ‘personal responsibility’ to look on www.infowars.com and to knock on Usama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh’s door to find out when they were going to plan these attacks.”

That is the exact tone I get from you. It sounds like Anarchy and anti-government. It doesn’t fly in the real world Kctim. I hope, someday, your opinion will change. Not everyone is capable of lifting themselves up. That is why I support government intervention when we, as a people, are constantly being screwed over. I can’t believe a common ground doesn’t exist between the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, and yourself.

Zeek,
I see what you are saying but I will have to rebut and articulate my points further.

No, politics is a power play where you win by forwarding your own career and helping your constituents. The idea of “beliefs” is just a ploy to gather votes.

I was talking about constituents, not politicians. It is common sense that politicians are phony. That is what I do and most of us do. We campaign. Imposing beliefs, by the constituents, is a part of the game. I don’t view it as a power play on my part. I view it as my idea of being one step closer to the perfect policies.

Mmmm… I’d have to say this is relative. If you’re rich, you’re better off in America. If you’re poor/middle-class, you’re better off in Canada (possibly). Happiness is driven by more than just healthcare you know.

I will agree with you on that. It should have been more clarified on my part. I do think that the nature of foreign countries like on Western Europe and Canada; the people are happier. That is through mere observation. Maybe it is where I live, but I think people in America are unhappy people for the most part. They work too much, have too many bills to pay and they get less vacation time. It is all debatable but I stand firm on this view.

“In case you didn’t know, the more people get screwed, the more a demand is made.”

This makes no sense. Either explain yourself or omit this sentence.

Well, I don’t think a national healthcare would really be demanded by people who are not on the far left if more control on the HMO’s were made. It is out of control now. All you have to do is look at Julia’s statistics for that. Unfortunately, the easiest solution that I see is a national healthcare system. We are being screwed over. Even when you do pay the astronomically high premiums, you don’t even get everything covered. One company won’t cover my Methylphenidate. It is a travesty. Either the politicians do something or my party and a few others will demand that they do something.

“How about you start preaching a responsibility on politicians”

Come on, we all know that’s never going to happen…

The reason I say that is for the same thing that I just explained above. Kctim seems to believe that it is okay for politicians to turn a blind eye and vote on anti-family and pro-corporate bills. It is a case of “shit happens.” We wouldn’t be demanding a national health care system if they could put forth some regulation on the slavery that those corporations have on the people. I stand firm on that belief.

Craig,

If the goal is to be happy we have some huge changes to make.

I agree. There is a ton that needs to be done but I am not the one to give up and nor are the ardent Democrats on Watchblog. I refuse to allow the government to step on my toes.

Most of the people at the bottom were raised with universal health coverage. Those at the top don’t seem to have a pot to pea in or a window to through it out of. So it looks like it’s not money, power or healthcare that makes us happy.

I see what you are saying. I don’t believe that health care and such will make the happy man. I do think that people in socialized countries have a better head on their shoulders though. They can trust the government. That is a good thing. When people can’t trust their own government, people tend to become rabid Evangelicals and scream “the world is coming to an end” after every Earthquake and then we get quacks like the Michigan Militia. Being away from fear will make people much happier. I think that our country, especially after 9-11 is consumed by fear. That is never a good thing. People don’t need material. They need security. People can be just as happy in a sewer hole as a kingdom but when you are in that kingdom and the kingdom isn’t looking out for you; sanity stops taking place. I want to be friends with the government, not anti-government. I believe that the government can do better. I believe that. I hope I am making sense here because exceptions to the rules are hard to explain. It is mere observation but it is something that I firmly believe.

Chris,
I can agree with that premise to leave the system alone and create government hospitals. I can agree with it but I’d need to know more. It wouldn’t be bad for interns and people who are coming out of medical school.

Ivan,
Your compromise is very well thought out. You are right on another thing. We aren’t playing fair. When the system is not fair, people won’t play fair. Unfortunately, the politicians feel more compelled to hear the insurance companies crys than our own. When that is being done, we won’t play fair. You have a compromise and I would hope that it passes through legislation. I do think that an experiment should be made. How about giving free healthcare to every child under the age of 17. A three year experiment could be done and see if it will work. Usually, temporary programs won’t wrong as it does become permanent. If the duration of the program can be put into legislation, it will allow all sides; Republicans, Democrats and Independents to see if they want to vote in favor of a national health care system. What do you think?

Donny Goodman:

“That is why I support government intervention when we, as a people, are constantly being screwed over. I can’t believe a common ground doesn’t exist between the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, and yourself. “

Unfortunately, I think the common ground is overlooked in favor of political posturing. Elections are all-important, and RE-elections are doubly so. Government intervention is a tricky thing. One person’s view of being screwed over may be viewed by others as a simple inconvenience. Understand, I am not trying to be antagonistic. I just wonder if the bigger problem isn’t in determining when the intervention takes place, rather than whether or not the intervention idea is valid. Congress and the President, who ever controls them, have proven throughout the years to be rather incapable of determining, on a consistant basis, when to intervene.

Good topic.

One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) for the astronomical cost of health care in America are the out-of-control lawsuits.

Lawsuits that range from suing doctors for patients who commit suicide to suits for delivering babies with cerebral palsy have jacked the cost of malpractice insurance to exorbitant heights.

One of the most successful malpractice attorneys in our lifetime ran on the Democratic ticket in the last Presidential election; John Edwards actually pioneered the lawsuits I mentioned above.

Let the Democrats, the party of the trial lawyers, dig into their own pockets FIRST, and pass some tort reform, before they try to guilt me into paying for the problems their settlements have brought about.

Luis Gonzales:

“One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) for the astronomical cost of health care in America are the out-of-control lawsuits.”

I agree the litigious nature of society is a contributing factor. Another equally important contributing factor is the total reluctance of the insurance industry to reduce their profit margin.

I was a legislative assistant to a State Senator who chaired a survey committee on “Tort Reform and Insurance Reform.” It became clear that trial attorneys think of themselves as a growth industry and the insurance representatives think of themselves and their profit margin as a sacred cow. In addition, the pharmacuetical companies fall directly in line with the insurance industry. Neither the tort reformers not the insurance industry reformers have a lot to brag about with respect to their arguements in this case.

This is yet another case of two extreme sides not seeking common ground to solve a desperate problem. In this case, it is not election driven, but pure greed.

Chi Chi,
Thanks a lot for your response. Malpractice lawsuits are a big problem but 5% of those doctors are sued 50% of the time. I sense that they are the one’s with the problems; not the people nor the lawsuits. Trial attorney’s are a good bunch. They stick up for the common man against the powerful titans in society. They will stick up for us when no one else will listen nor care. We get our proper compensation when they, the doctors, had no excuse to screw up in the first place. The human body is delicate. Doctors, sometimes, are so over worked that they become reckless in procedure. It is never an excuse for a doctor to be drunk on the job. People criticize that about me. “Do you know better than a doctor” or “why don’t you trust doctors?” I understand they are trying to make a living but sometimes; doctors will give people, knowingly, unnecessary tests so they can cram another 500 dollars in their pockets. It is wrong. The ironic cognitive dissonance in society is that people will be quick to call someone a bad lawyer but not quick to call someone a bad doctor. I understand that they do not want to think that a doctor can be bad because they are dealing with someone’s health. Lawyers go to law school. Doctors go to medical school. Apparently, both schools can produce a bad doctor. Our society is too driven by medication. We see a hyper, yet more accurately, an ambitious kid. We want to put that kid on ritalin. That is never the solution. Doctors are trained too much on which medications to prescribe rather than prescribing the advice to: not smoke, eat a healthy diet of fruits and vegetables, exercise, take naps, ecetera. A lot needs to be fixed and the doctor’s mentality is one of those things.

HAHA, thats a new one, congrats. I’ve been called a liberal, republican, democrat, libertarian and now an anarchist. I love it.

You’re forgetting the time I called you a bible-thumper or something to that affect. =) I told you you confused people.

Donny,
Good insight. I don’t see anything that should stop us from trying some type of experiment with health care. I would like to see some sort of compromise where we could keep the industry in the hands of the private sector rather then just automatically socializing medicine. However, if no change is made to our current health care system, I would prefer the socialized approach to the current system we have. A lot has been said about medical malpractice and how that drives up the cost of health care. I’m all for making M.D.’s accountable for the decisions they make. I think people should look again at Pres. Bush legislation to cap the pain and suffering award for victims. You need to realize that this legislation won’t solve the problem, but I think that it is very fair. You need to realize that the victims medical bills, salary for the rest of their life, and any other type of compenation that would have been the victims families is awarded to them, then they receive a max of 300K due to pain and suffering.

I work in a hospital and many times M.D.’s are taken to court on things that they can’t control. Medicine can’t cure everything. Donny, one thing that you need to realize is that it is true that 5% of the Dr’s are in 50% of the cases, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are bad Dr’s. Much of this has to do with their speciality. Specialties such as OBGYN’s, Othopaedics, and other specialities are much higher risk and have a better chance of being charged with malpractice.

I don’t think that Pres. Bush’s proposal will solve all of the problems to do with health care, but regardless of if you are red or blue, everyone knows that it is good legislation. I don’t think that health care will be reformed to the extent that we want it to with the republicans ruling, but they have a good piece of legislation that will help the general public. So why are the Dem’s dragging their feet? Something needs to be done and there are no drawback to passing Pres. Bush’s legislation.
Ivan

Donny:

“Trial attorney’s are a good bunch. They stick up for the common man against the powerful titans in society. They will stick up for us when no one else will listen nor care. We get our proper compensation when they, the doctors, had no excuse to screw up in the first place. “

I agree—to an extent. Just as in any profession, there are good and bad trial attorneys. The bad ones get the pub. There are many who look for justice, but there are too many who look for a payday at the expense of all of us. Let’s face it, the awards are not paid by the insurance companies or doctors, they are paid by the policy holders. Just as no corporation has ever actually paid tax (they pass the cost on to the consumer) no insurance company or doctor has ever paid a claim.

The insurance companies have little motivation to lower rates—people just keep paying them. Doctors have little motivation to reduce defensive medicine—the insurance companies keep paying them and patients keep demanding it. The trial attorneys have little motivation to slow the rate of lawsuits or to check the validity of them before trial—they keep getting paid either way. The pharmacuetical companies have little motivation to reduce costs of R & D or the end drug—they keep getting paid and now the government gives them an excuse to continue by paying a portion of the price to “make it more affordable for seniors and people on fixed incomes.”

There is a lot of common ground—the most important end goal should be patient care and welfare. The most common end goal in reality is money to perpetuate the system.

WOW do I sound cynical. I’m usually not. But this particular problem is very circular in its MO. Round and round we go.

Hey Donny, we critique the message, not the messenger around here.

If you really care, why must YOU “get anything out of it?” I thought it was about THEM.

Dude, where did you get that idea. It’s all about ME. I want cheaper health care, and amortizing it across 300 million people helps.

The worst system would be Euro medicine with American medical attitudes, American legal system and American checkbooks.

Jack, you have some really good points. They cry out for a blue-ribbon panel. But remember, if you wait for perfect, it’ll never happen. It’s better to just do it. ;)

American Pundit,
What are you talking about? I suspect you have a mistaken identity. I had to read all of my boring posts again because of that and I couldn’t find where you quoted me from. Also, I rarely capitalize a word. Please post the whole post so I know where I said that. I’d hate to have to deal with identity fraud or something. Damn.

Having free healthcare for everyone under 18 to see if socialism is a good idea, is like crash testing suv’s to see how safe lil toy cars are.

People under 30 use healthcare far less than any other age group, those over 50 use the most.

Do your test on mid group 30-50 if you want to see what socialized medicine will cost.

Beagle,
I say that because not one child in this country should not have health care.
The elderly are already the most taken care of group in the country. They are taken care of more than blacks, kids and the poor.
The 30-50 bracket would be the most pissed off about a socialized health care. That age group is the type that have already made up their minds and are at enough of a prime in their careers to not care for the health care being socialized as far as experiments are concerned.
Let the kids have it. They need it the most. Adults are usually good enough to persevere with their day when sick. I want every child to go to school healthy. Let the kids have it. Is it too much to ask for?

Sorry, Donny. I was referring to your top 10 mischaracterizations of kctim. He’s an individualist, not a heartless bastard. He’s also fun to go back & forth with.

The quote is actually kctim’s.

People under 30 use healthcare far less than any other age group

Then it ought to be a pretty damned cheap pilot program, shouldn’t it Beagle? :)

Donny,

I think those under 18 already have healthcare available to them.
If the parents don’t pay for it the state will.

Denying needed care to a child is illegal, they call it child abuse.

I agree that EVERYONE should get basic healthcare, comming up with a way to pay for it is the trickie part.

If you wish to have a “test”, have it cover everyone but only for certain types of medical problems/needs, then try to base what total care would cost useing the % methods.

AP,

Yes it would be a cheap pilot program, but the costs wouldn’t mean sick-em to base an entire socialized med. program on.

That was my main point.

Again, all the legal and malpractice awards, and everything else combined is less than 5% of your bill. Your not going to get huge savings if you concentrate on tort reform.

I will make a confession: my family is all doctors, lawyers, and psychologists. From the doctors, I know that their hospitals typically have profitability problems more on the cost of the medical equipment and test costs.

We can’t seriously talk about curbing health costs unless we know what the percentage breakdowns is for your average medical bill. Is paperwork processing 15% of your bill? 30%? All I know is legal is less than 5%

Julia

Trial attorney’s are a good bunch. They stick up for the common man against the powerful titans in society.

With John Edwards reporting a net worth somewhere between $12 and $60 million dollars (not bad for the son of a humble mill worker!), he IS a powerful titan.

John Kerry’s reported net worth of $164 million makes one wonder if (other than his domestic staff) he’s even ever SEEN a “common man”.

Tort reform will lead to drops in insurance and in turn drop in medical costs; if we mirror Europe’s more socialist system, the ability ro sue for malpractice will go away anyway.

Actually, Julia, malpractice is one half of one percent according to the CBO. The GOP argument is that it incurs “hidden” costs. No one knows what the hidden costs really are and Reps put the figure as high as possible.

C’mon, Luis. Like Bush & Cheney aren’t multi-millionaires.

Tort reform will lead to drops in insurance and in turn drop in medical costs

We’ll probably get a chance to find out. If premiums don’t drop significantly, do you want to eat a hat or a shoe?

Julia,

Even if “legal costs” are only 5%, how much of the paperwork and testing are a result of the damn “legal” system ?

Perhaps a bunch of those other costs should be moved over to the legal column ?

Legal costs only 5%? I don’t think that the defensive medicine that is practiced is figured into that 5%. I work in radiology, and radiologists are always ordering studies that are unnecessary. $1200 for a CT, up to $3000 for an MRI. I have talked to Dr’s who specifically say that we are doing this study to prove that there is not problem. The M.D. knows that the test is useless, they just cover their butts so they don’t lose their license. After years of schooling, an hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans that they have built up, I really don’t blame them. I would do the same thing to cover myself.
Ivan

I believe, from looking at hospital breakdowns, it comes to about 5% (including defensive medicine and paperwork), but there really aren’t a lot of good figures out there.

AP,

I think California enacted Tort reform (and didn’t a couple of other states as well?) It didn’t seem to have much of an appreciable effect on bills. What did have an effect was caps on insurance premiums.

Kctim,
I apologize. I am a little socialist at times so I do get the impression that people who don’t want government intervention or higher taxes for the common good are heartless bastards. Sparing with you is fun. I will give you credit though. You can push my buttons better than Eric of the red team. I hope you accept my apology.

American Pundit,
Thanks for pointing out my flaws bro. I am glad to be on your team. I guess sometimes I should calm my manic self and not be like Dick Cheney and say “go fuck yourself.” We have a lot to work on as a team and health care and coming up with a decent proposal is one of those things that the Democrats, like us, can do to win people over in 2006.

Chi Chi:

“Do you see what you are doing? Pointing fingers, calling names, making accusations.”

Okay, okay. So I was being a bit of a jerk. Still, I didn’t think what I said was all that horrible. I just took my sarcastic kernel of truth and ran with it… for fun! BTW, you jumped into this thread asking me what planet I was on — that was way more personal IMO.

Julia - you fabulously knowledgeable woman — great stats!

Donny, Excellent Points. I didn’t think your posts were at all boring and I agree that there is no reason that America’s children shouldn’t automatically get free health care.
I’m actually for a complete universal health care system because of all the things that my cousin in Scotland has told me about their system. When I look at the exorbitant rate we payout every month for my husbands asthma meds, compared to what my cousin pays out for his much more severe and chronic asthma condition — which is nothing, I know we could get some sort of a decently well-run system that could work for all of us here.

And finally…
kctim, I’m extremely fond of you too. Though since we never seem to agree on anything, I honestly have no idea why! :^)

Julie,
My father in law is a doctor and once explained the problem to me this way. No only does he pay the high malpractive insurace, he also orders unneeded tests. He was taught in medical school, “when in doubt, run the test” but he said nowadays the doctors say “run enough tests until they would look good in front of a jury.” He also said he always prescribes the most costly medicine. Do you want to be the doctor on the stand in front of a jury trying to defend why he perscribed the old $1 pill instead of the fancy new $5 pill? Add to all this that my father in law always buys the most recent medical equipment. Again, do you want to be the doctor defending why he uses the 10 year old MRI machine when the newer model is even more accurate? It all adds up.

Getting back to an earlier point, how do you define healthcare and who is entitled to what type? I have a bad back and like to go to the chiropractor. My brother has acne and wants to take pills for it. My father uses viagra (don’t ask how I know…). My boss smokes, is overweight and has not excercised in 20 years. My neighbor refuses to eat veggies and drinks nothing but Coke. My best friend is a hopeless alcoholic. My sister is on the pill. Who deserves what? Maybe the debate would be easier if I knew if my taxes were going up to save a little kid with a defective heart valve or if it was going to pay for somebody’s viagra.

“C’mon, Luis. Like Bush & Cheney aren’t multi-millionaires.”

I don’t see anyone ever saying that the oil millionaires are fighting for the “common people”.

But somehow, we’re expected to believe that the trial attorney millionaires are.

DP,

Finally someone enters the debate that can express an opinon without bashing anyone elses, Thank you for that.

I also don’t really want to pay for someones viagra, If their ” sticker won’t peck up” its not my problem, I personaly could care less.

Everyone that thinks that Micheal Jackson should get a “new” nose 2x a year, paid for by taxpayers, won’t like my comments, OH well.

I DO care about those that can’t get basic care for something like a broken leg, thats what this debate should be about.

Only the basics will ever get a serious debate in America as far as healthcare goes.

I don’t see anyone ever saying that the oil millionaires are fighting for the “common people”.

Oh, please. The whole presidential campaign was about how the Harvard-educated millionaires in the Republican Party, like George W. Bush, are all about the average Joe - even as they enact legislation that’s tantamount to declaring war on the middle class.

Beagle, you’re absolutely right. But I don’t recall anybody but the GOP’s Pfizer lobbyists advocating Viagra be part of a universal healthcare package.

Why don’t we change the laws to make alternative healthcare and practitioners other than MD’s more heavily utilized? You can train a nurse practitioner for a fraction of the cost of an MD, and nurse practitioners can handle routine exams, referring anything complicated to an MD. I’m sure that would save millions. Or, my favorite issue is childbirth-Stop persecuting the midwives! A number of studies show that for a healthy woman a homebirth attended by a well-trained midwife is just as safe as a hospital birth. But, there is a incredible difference in cost. I had my first child at home-my midwife’s cash fee was $1600, her insurance fee $3200 (because they took forever to pay). I had a c-section at a hospital for my second. I have paid well over $2000 in co-pays and deductables, and the bills are still coming. So, the cost before insurance is at least $10K, probably more like $15K for someone who is uninsured. And the homebirth was a much more pleasant experience for me and my baby. In Holland, about 1/3 of births are attended by midwives at home, 1/3 by midwives in the hospital, and 1/3 by doctors, and they have lower infant and maternal mortality rates. Think of how much money that would be on a nationwide scale-to save about $10k on 1/3 of our nation’s total births! But, for some incomprehensible reason, midwives attending homebirths is illegal in my state (Indiana) and in many others.
Also, what about using acupuncture and other effective alternative treatments for chronic pain, so we can reduce the amount of pricey and potentially health damaging pharmaceuticals people must consume.
Also, why does our government continue subsidizing sugar farmers? Cheap sugar leads to over consumption, which leads to obesity and a host of health problems. Ditto for any farm subsidy of an unhealthy product.

DP,

I guess my point would be, that lawsuits have not appreciably risen, awards to lawsuits have not appreciably risen, yet what has risen is medical malpractice insurance. Has it risen in response to increases in lawsuits and fees? No. It’s risen in response to stock market forces.

So why would doctors be practising more defensive medicine if it doesn’t actually have any effect on the rates of lawsuits? They do it in response to demands from medical malpractice insurance, which has no really good reason to make increased demands.

Practicing defensive medicine is the result of fear of lawsuits, which isn’t grounded in any reality whatsoever. We place the blame on the lawsuits when the blame should rest on the insurance companies who claim that they can’t make money because of the lawsuits, which is simply not the case.

Julia

Here’s what I’ve been saying in a nutshell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?incamp=article_popular_1

Administrative costs are 31 cents of every dollar we spend???!!! Compared to 17 cents in Canada? There’s the issue, guys. That’s ridiculous.

“kctim, I’m extremely fond of you too. Though since we never seem to agree on anything, I honestly have no idea why!”

We agree on much Adrienne, it is only the stuff we do not agree on that we remember. In todays world, the negatives garner our attention more so than the positives.
The war, abortion, gay marriage, charity for those in need, the Patriot Acts and our 1st Amendment rights are just some of the things we have agreed upon.

DG
No need to apologize friend. It is your duty and right to stand behind your beliefs.
If you think I drive you crazy with this, wait until another gun control topic is posted. LOL!
I also will try to explain myself better and answer your questions in a more direct manner. Thanks for that critique.

Beagle:

“I DO care about those that can’t get basic care for something like a broken leg, thats what this debate should be about.”

I am a dealer in truth. So, who exactly gets kicked out of an emergency room with a broken leg, even if they can’t pay? I would really like to see a truthful, fact based discussion on this topic. But factless, inflamatory statements like this only serve to fuel the fire, not solve the problem

Beagle,

I may just be a little traumatized by living in the San Francisco Bay area, but in SF, even gender changing operations are covered for city workers…Arrgh. Stop the madness.

Julia,

I have seen the numbers you cite about the admin cost before and I believe them. The question I would ask is why would insurance companies and doctors allow such inefficiencies into the system? Both groups want to make as much money as possible and it seems they would be first in line to try to cut down on these costs to increase their profits. Inefficiencies normally spring up in businesses if companies get lazy due to a lack of competition or if government imposes certain regulations companies must follow which increase administration costs. I don’t know enough about healthcare admin to really say for sure but normally private companies are far more efficient than government in administrative matters since more efficiency means more profit for them which is what they are all about. Maybe we need to make it easier for more companies to get into the health insurance and health delivery? More competition means lower profit margins for these companies which means lower costs of their products. If we centralize healthcare through the government we create a monopoly. The reason we discourage monopolies in business is that they end up costing consumers more and giving less options than if there are several competitiors competing in the market.

Jen,

You have a good point. I get a checkup every year from a doctor making $150K when all he does is asks me to cough and whacks my knee with a hammer. A nurse would have cost a lot less.

why would insurance companies and doctors allow such inefficiencies into the system?

It would cost a good chunk o’ change up front to make the necessary changes and do the training. Kerry’s healthcare plan called for “incentives” (tax credits - we ripped this idea off from the Republicans) to upgrade.

Chi Chi,
I think it is illegal to refuse to treat emergency cases on the grounds of inability to pay. However, the person with the broken leg still has a legal obligation to pay, and without insurance will pay much more than the insurance company does for the same problem.
However, a broken leg is not the real problem. With the way things currently are, people who have cancer will delay going to the hospital for diagnosis because they can’t afford it. Delay will cost many of these people their lives. People with chest pains will not go to the hospital because they can’t afford it and it might not really be a heart attack, and many of them will die. People will live with disabilities that may cost them their jobs, because they can’t afford to go to the doctor.

The problem is not the hospitals turning people away, the problem is that responsible lower and middle income people cannot afford medical bills, so they won’t go to the doctor. This both negatively impacts their lives and makes their problems more costly to treat later. With the new bankruptcy legislation, even irresponsible or desperate people will think twice about going to the doctor, knowing that they will be paying for it for the rest of their lives.

The way the current (US)system works:
Large insurance companies ‘negotiate’ shrinking contracts based on Medicare payment schemes with small groups of non-organized providers. The providers have very little negotiating power. “If you dont take our offer, we’ll take our 10,000 patients elsewhere”. Doctors are forced into accepting less than reasonable reimbursement rates. Then the insurance companies increase the premiums to their consumers while reducing the benefits, creating a standard where everyone is paying more for less.
Doctors have several conflicting problems. They make less money per patient, so they have to see more patients. Seeing more patients reduces time spent with patients, raising error rates. Skyrocketing medical malpractice dues and settlements in a “nothing to loose if try to sue” environment has been going through the roof. So a doctor has less income per patient, and the need now is to see even more people in less time, but now try to create battleship cases over every little runnin nose and cough via voracious mounds of non-reimburseable paperwork.

You cannot compare Scandanavian medicine to the US because of several enourmous differences.
1. Immigration. compare illegal immigrant rates of the two nations, and the cost/drain ratio to the system. In order to even attempt a national health care system, the illigal immigration problem would have to be solved.
2. Tort reform. The US could absolutely never embark in a national health system under current medico-legal designs. I personally believe the noose around every docs neck makes them far less efficient, and more likly to make error due to the resource diversion moving away from patient care, over to case protection. So, the US lawyers would absolutely have to agree to some calling off the dogs for it to work. THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY NEVER HAPPEN. The first day I see lawyers deciding that for the good of society, they have to make less money, will be the day I fly a monkey from my butt.
3. Expectations of care; Everyone has heard that a large portion of health care $$ are spent in the last few weeks of a persons life. Often due to an ICU stay for weeks with a critically ill patient that may or may not live. Well thats fine if its a healthy kid in a car wreck and we’re trying to get him back……but right now its still the standard of care to take a 96yo granny with a 15% EF, renal dialysis, breast cancer, blind and diabetic back to the OR to resect her diverticulitis / peritonits, and watch her barely stay alive for 4 weeks in the ICU, with every specialty consult and a final bill topping $900,000. Right now Americans aren’t ready to say “goodby” to Granny when she gets sick. Doctors are still too scared to withhold care, cuase I guruntee ya they’ll be some family friend damn lawyer just a waitin to disembowel them.
5. Innefficient beaurocracy. This system could only work if it was a seperate independent branch of government, complete with independant audits. Otherwise, it would grow to over 1/2 the entire GNP with everyone screaming and yelling about how poorly its run, and the legislators saying it would run better if only we wouldnt be greedy with our money and let them raise our taxes from 55% to 65%, then the system would certainly work great.

So those are a few of the barriers to nationalizing health care in the US. Not to mention, hardly anyone is interested in becoming a doctor now as we speak, and the amount of new recruits into medicine in a nationalized system would be laughable.

The current problems include the non-unionized working force of the doctors, unable to demonstrate their worth in the market. A bullying insurance scheme that picks at the revenues from the isolated, indivdualized practices. The lawyers that have unobstructed full speed run at every doctor and every case without any consequences for lost cases. Outrageous expectations for continuing aggressive end of life care in the face of hopeless outcomes wasting resources. A highly mobilized illegal alien population putting further economic strain on the providers. And finaly a liberal government that has never stepped in to aid with insurance reform and price control / regulations, or any meaningful legal / tort reform. The big business of insurance Co’s and the trail lawyers all feeding the liberals’ pockets to keep the battle tilted aweful to one side. Then, when the battle wears down, and the doctors are gone, and the access is so poor, people start bitching to the same representatives who f*cked it in the first place, they will be glad to put on the suoerman cape of courage, and the liberal crown of olive leaves and say, “We can do this better”, let us own and run your health care, the docs didnt seem to be able to do it too well”. “It is now clearly THE PEOPLES’S RIGHT, and our duty to nationalize it.”

And there it is a beautiful example of the well meaning love for all that is a liberal national government.