[clemgrad85]

So will you stop taking social security after it has paid you more than you put in? I don't think so. What will you be relying on? You're growing and growing 401K--the private world's attempt at retirement savings?

For someone so against a government take-over, that sounds pretty hypocritical.

I hope....and this is serious....that you aren't relying on just social security zelgo....if you are....ummmm....and I'm being sincere....please do yourself a favor and start some other options. All joking aside.

Again, I don't plan on it being there....honestly I don't.....but if it is there I will take it as I contributed to it. But, again, if you can pull some strings and allow me to stop contributing now....I will waive my rights to social security and put that money aside on my own. Thank you very much! I do have a retirement plan and I have invested in some other "options" (private enterprise stuff that a socialist wouldn't find interesting) that will hopefully help me out!

[davidra]

Bring on those informative posts about how much better Canada's system is than ours, Zelgo. We're waiting.

First, there are many other kinds of universal coverage plans than Canada or the UK. They vary from largely private like Germany, mostly private (like Italy) to a mix ( most others).

Again, from the Commonwealth Fund via Newsweek:

Most Americans have heard horror stories of long waits for health-care services in other countries. But according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, Americans wait longer to see primary-care physicians than patients in Britain, Germany, Australia, or New Zealand—all countries with strong public-health systems. Nearly one quarter of Americans reported waiting six days or more for an appointment with their doctor. New Zealand scored best, with just 3 percent waiting that long, followed by Australia (10 percent), Germany (13 percent), and Britain (15 percent). Canada rounded out the bottom, with more than a third waiting six days or more. Similarly, America shares with its northern neighbor the dubious honor of being ranked last in terms of patients' ability to make same-day appointments. Only 26 percent of Americans and Canadians reported being able see their doctor on the day they called, compared with 60 percent in the Netherlands and 48 percent in Britain. Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, says America ranks last overall in the fund's comparative studies, which consider access, equity, cost, quality, and efficiency measures across select developed countries. "Where we do well is on …selective surgery," she says. Only 8 percent of Americans have to wait four months or more for an elective procedure, and 62 percent wait less than a month. In Britain, 41 percent of patients have to wait four months or more. The disparity between primary and elective care, says Davis, is mostly due to a shortage of primary-care docs in the U.S.; we produce more specialists because specialists earn a lot more.

Link

Instead of trying to cherry-pick information, why don't you just explain some reasonable alternative, in words, as to exactly how you would provide care for an additional 45 million or so people? Or are you like the republicans in congress....saying they want reform but not offering any concrete plans?

I said simply expand Medicare. Tell us in words just what it is you want. Or at least try.

[clemgrad85]

How do you know I'm not a land-owning white man??? SO because I said it was written by land-owning whites, I don't think highly of it?

Is it possible to jump any further in logic? No--but it does explain alot of your opinions.

Oh zelgo...it's okay you got caught with your own words, I don't blame you for that.....you spew so much junk probably hard to keep track of your own negativity and BS.

[Micael]

Are these two articles the only ones you have and keep trotting out?

They've both been debunked quite effectively on here already.

Pseudo- research only convinces the uninformed.

Ok, lies. One of those isn't even a news article. The other was written just today. You didn't even look at them, and they've not been debunked because you can't debunk them. Thanks for playing, you lose Zelgo.

[Micael]

Huh? You accused me of not answering her question and I said she didn't have a question to answer.

Who's ducking and weaving?

You. Address what she said, or sthu.

[Micael]

Sure, you can listen and address their questions, but if their questions were logical.

If a bunch of people came to your townhall and kept talking about how the earth is flat--what would you say?

I really doubt Barney Frank is going to lose his House position over striking back at a woman spouting nonsense.

They're saying the earth is flat? And you don't even know what the woman was spouting. You're just blindly defending Frank.

[clemgrad85]

By what you said, I am contruing that you want to blow it up America! You're a terrorist!!

You said I "spew so much junk"--isn't that code word for you're a terrorist (just paraphrasing, of course)?

Just using your logic to understand your writing.

LOL....zelgo is losing it....but I've known that for awhile. You need to take one of your pills boy. You know....you seem like one of those yelling Republicans

[clemgrad85]

I'm just a socialist? Shucks, I was hoping to be called a commie today.

By the way, I hope those options work out for you. They don't seem to have worked out for anyone promised big gains.

Thanks! I hope they work out as well....if not....I'll just keep plugging away. Sometimes you gotta risk a little money to make bigger money.

[Micael]

I watched it--I saw her start her remarks with "This Nazi plan."

My defense of Frank isn't blind, It's fully informed.

Not hardly. Because it IS about a national socialist based plan. Everyone shuts down once the word is used, and instantly images of Hitler death camps come to mind. Try to get past that for a minute. That's not what she was talking about. It's the healthcare policies. There are parallels.

[clemgrad85]

Republican? Now, THAT's an insult.

If you can take huge leaps of logic in paraphrasing my words, I can do the same to you.

I still find it funny that you didn't remember trashing the white land owners looking out for themselves only. Funny stuff!

[Toby]

The study's real straw man is the fact that he includes the cost of locating medicare fraud to the administrative cost.

What percentage of administrative cost does that make up for Medicare? Your real straw man is that private insurance doesn't have any mechanism to cope with fraud. Obviously they can't arrest or fine people like the federal government can, but perhaps there's a reason for their claims process being the way it is.

The whole study is so worthless and created just so conservatives can have a "study" to refer to.

It's not a study. It's an analysis of the claims of proponents of Medicare's efficiency when compared to private insurance.

[davidra]

Not hardly. Because it IS about a national socialist based plan. Everyone shuts down once the word is used, and instantly images of Hitler death camps come to mind. Try to get past that for a minute. That's not what she was talking about. It's the healthcare policies. There are parallels.

So take a deep breath. Try and concentrate. And tell us what you want. What exactly will you do to solve the problem? You're in the "industry". Give a concise description of what your alternative is to a "Nazi health plan". Stop saying what you don't like. What DO you like? And if the only thing you can say is HSA's and tax cuts, don't bother, because that's a joke.

[KAM1138]

That "Power and control" straw man again---like Pres. Johnson gots so much power and control with Medicare.

And yes, the government did a bang-up job with Medicare and Social Security. They lifted the ignored elderly out of poverty and expanded life by 14 years--something that private insurance neglected to care about because it didn't bring them profits.

"Power and control" is not at all at straw man--it is the inherent underlying and constant struggle between any government and its citizens. There is always a balance between control and freedom. Power and Control in the United States is often manifested by creation of dependency. When a citizen is dependent on a government service, they are beholden to that government and by necessity will continue to support it--or in some cases the segment that is most effective at threatening that the other guy will take it away. As such, politicians, and political parties retain their control quite effectively.

To ignore this inherent issue in the context of a government proposing to control a massive part of the economy, is foolish, and short-sighted...or deceptive.

The claim that Medicare and Social security expanded life by 14 years is dubious, and is much more likely due to advances in medical science that are largely funded by private sector research. In other words--profit has allowed progress to be made which enhances people's lives and lifespans. Of course someone who talks about profit as if it were a bad thing, wouldn't wish to acknowledge this.

To review of course its about "power and control" because we aren't governed by Angels. Anyone who forgets this, and believes in the benevolence of government is risking their and everyone's freedom. Governments (and/or particular segments of governments) are constantly attempting to increase their control over the populace--this is just the latest example of it.

KAM

[Toby]

Wrong. At least, for the House. They're supposed to have their thumbs on our pulse. Maybe its a bit more like you say for the Senate.

Well, as I said, I'm not a Constitutional Scholar according to my esteemed colleague, so I could be mistaken. If it's not too much trouble, could you point out in which of the Federalist Papers that case was made?

But in either case, simply by being elected, you don't automatically become smarter and wiser than your constituents.

Nor did I say one did.

You were elected to Represent them so that their concerns and feelings will be HEARD in Washington. And to bring back some pork, as it were....

I do hope you're joking.

[palandri]

I wonder how many years away we are from DNA correction scanning, which will make most doctors and pharmaceutical companies obsolete?

[davidra]

The claim that Medicare and Social security expanded life by 14 years is dubious, and is much more likely due to advances in medical science that are largely funded by private sector research. In other words--profit has allowed progress to be made which enhances people's lives and lifespans. Of course someone who talks about profit as if it were a bad thing, wouldn't wish to acknowledge this.

KAM

Really? So the NIH, a branch of the Federal Government, didn't have anything to do with advancing medical science? Just how familiar are you with medical science? Private sector research has been primarily driven by profits, even when it has made some difference (as in Genentech). Most of it is geared toward developing new drugs with minimal advantages over existing drugs. If research contributed to extending survival, it was the US taxpayers and the legislators that fought long and hard to provide federal funding for the NIH that get the credit, not for-profit industry. To say otherwise is laughable.

[Toby]

That would be a study...

ITYM "study", which clearly shows that even you don't believe your straw man.

Private insurances can bring charges against someone acting fraudulently, just like anyone else can. They do not have to spend any money for fraud investigation because they know Medicare does it.

Come now. Medicare investigates fraud against Medicare. Unless someone is trying to defraud Medicare by filing a false claim against Medicare and another insurer, Medicare does not investigate private insurance fraud. Both Medicare and private insurers have to rely to a great extent on their beneficiaries to point out fraud.

Thus, this "study" is not a good one because it bases its conclusions on a part of Medicare that has nothing to do with administering the program.

No, I think your straw man is not a good one, since you're twisting yourself in mental pretzels to shore it up.

[KAM1138]

Hello Again,

I know I'm jumping into this late, but the question of "what's your plan" is out there. I have some really simple plans that I think are worth considering.

First, it must be stated that there is no (or very little) free market health care system currently, and hasn't been for a long time. We have a highly regulated system that eliminates most possibility for free market benefits. So, one must acknowledge the starting point. We are already in a system where the government is the single largest payer of health costs in the country--which hasn't led to lower costs, but in fact the opposite. Costs have skyrocketed under this system. So many issues involved here, and I'll not attempt to go into them all.

1) Address 'portability' by getting employers out of providing health insurance. If you own the policy yourself and pay for it yourself it stays with you regardless of whether you change jobs or not. Keep in mind that prior to the WWII era, employers didn't often pay for health insurance--it was the result of wage controls--a means of enticing workers when they couldn't pay them more (thanks to government wage control--sticking a wedge in the free market). So, undue the damage caused by government in the first place.
Use the money the employer is indirectly paying the employee to just pay them directly. That also allows them to decide if they want to spend on health insurance and what type of policy.

2) Make all health care expenses of individual tax deductible.

3) 47 Million supposedly uninsured. Use the current 300 billion we currently pay for Medicaid to provide health insurance the poor supposedly without (that's approximately $6400 per year available for that--per person--a quick estimate for insurance that's better than mine costs approximately $4400 per year--assuming a 40 year old as an average age--keeping in mind medicare is a separate system for the elderly). That's clearly a quick estimate, but an example of what could be done.

4) Eliminate common care health insurance. No insurance system will work, when payouts are extremely likely on a continuing basis (which health costs are). It's like trying to buy food insurance. It is also why costs are skyrocketing--because we are pretending we can insure against expected costs, rather than relatively unlikely catastrophic events (Stroke, heart attack, major injury, cancer). Use the savings between a policy that covers everything and this to put into an HSA or something similar--providing a pool off money to pay for everyday medical costs (this pool has an excellent chance of growing quite large while a young adult is healthy, say from 18-35 years of age. So, even a significant health-care need at age 30 or so would be paid for from an account that's been growing for 10-12 years.

5) Deal with Tort Reform and the costs of "defensive medicine." No effort that ignores this can be seriously called "reform."

I can't say that these points address everything, or that they are my ideal system--I merely see them as straight-forward improvements.

It should also be pointed out the insincerity of the "reform" effort, because instead of addressing the issues that can easily be agreed to, which will provide benefit now, they are attempting to use the "Crisis" to force the country into a system that it will not be able to get out from under later. The attempt to rush this is very telling, and opens the potential for making massive mistakes that will cost us.

KAM

[Funky Cricket]

holy hell, you all have too much time on your hands! I can't and won't read all of that.

2 points:

Who said private insurance is going away? I didn't hear that? Did you, please show the bill that says "you can only have government insurance"

second, we already pay for the unsinsured, who do you think pays for them when they go to the emergency room with no insurance, WE DO. they get help, don't pay and the hospitals and doctors pass that cost along to us or our insurance companies (that pass it to us). I have the blues their great, but they only cover 500 bucks in preventative care, um, wouldn't that cost less, sure would, but they make less on it, why cover it. I still can't afford to cover a general hows it going visits or vactinations for my kid, cause they are't covered.

The OP took a ridiculous stand and needs to look at what is actually going on. Not that any of us have seen a bill. But saying GOVERNMENT IS BAD, well you voted, and I voted, and the people WE voted in are trying to do the best they can.

Also don't forget, we aren't a democracy, we are a republic. We picked (supposedly) smart people to make decisions for us as a whole. This whole proccess was set up to prevent jack-arses like rush from rousing a herd of morons to go vote on something. Having a layer from the masses to the bills prevents blind voting with out information. While healthy debate is good and proper, ignorance and blind faith to a radio jock is not good.

I'm not saying that what is proposed is right and good, but at least something is being done. Though personally, i'd like to see education get more attention. (opps, shouldn't have opened that can of worms)

[KAM1138]

I don't particularly want the Fed involved in my life either. It's the fact that private industry and the states have utterly failed in providing quality, inexpensive healthcare that has forced the Fed's hand.

When you say "the Fed" I guess you mean the Federal Government, not the Federal Reserve(commonly referred to as "the Fed.")

It's your opinion that Private enterprise and the states have failed to provide quality, inexpensive health care. That's a matter of perspective. First, I question your assumption of whether "inexpensive" and "quality" should go together.

Of course, without Medicare and Social security, the elderly could not benefit from all those medical advances. Most of the drugs, by the way, come out of NIH, not private industry. Yes, we pay for them twice--one through taxes and again when the drug companies charge whatever they want.

Again--that's your claim. I claim if the government didn't continually take money from individuals (FICA and Medicare/medicaid withholding, and other taxes) people could afford whatever it was they made a priority. You'll have to provide some documentation on your claim about who develops drugs, because that seems untrue. Private Drug companies research and develop many, many drugs in common use.

Oh yes, Medicare and Social Secuity have decreased my freedom so, so much. I feel enslaved actually...

If you fail to understand that economic freedom is in fact our most common expression of our liberty then that's your failing. Aside from your unnecessary snide comment, taking your money is in fact limiting your ability to exercise your freedom--your choice to use your own money to do what you wish with it. This is a very simple concept. Denying that with sarcasm won't make it go away.

On the other hand, my falling stock portfolio (controlled by that wonderful, all-loving and giving private sector) really HAS decreased my freedom.

Wait? Who's stock portfolio is it? Yours--YOUR responsibility. YOU as an owner of stock control the companies you choose to invest in (proportionally). If the ups and downs of a market are too harsh for you, you have no one to blame but yourself. Don't cry about it and blame the "private sector" for your failures and bad decisions.

I'm actually rather shocked that you're willing to hand over all that POWER and CONTROL you fear to private industry.

Well, I'm not sure why anything I (someone you don't know) would shock you as you have no basis to judge what is normal for me based on one post. Since you bring it up, I'll use it to make another relevant point--that is I don't really like having others control my ability to get things like health care--which is why I advocate a reduction of reliance on it (which I mentioned in a later post--no fault of yours for not knowing that--only for making assumptions without asking first). I advocate getting insurance companies out of the way as well--at least for most things. Why would I want to replace them with a less accountable government. With an insurance system I can leave it if I wish, or find another one, or go without. With the government system, we are forced to participate (as we are with medicare and medicaid--at least forced to pay for it). With insurance companies I have alternatives, with the government I have none. Thanks for underscoring another reason why a single-payer (read total control) system is a very bad thing.

KAM