[art_director]

Who has it right? Who has it wrong? Are they both wrong? Are they both right?

In my view the United States gets an F- on the healthcare front. That opinion takes both Republican and Democrat initiatives into account. As the world's richest nation we should have accessible and affordable healthcare for all our residents.

We've paid for 600 pacemakers for Dick Cheney, a man who, by any measure, can afford his own healthcare. And, while I appreciate what Kennedy is going through, he has more than enough cash to fund his own cancer treatment. I think we should take away free healthcare for all elected officials -- most of them are extremely wealthy, the rest are just wealthy. The money we spend on them could go to better use helping children from low income families.

Our former Senator from MN, Mark Dayton (D), was not my favorite politician but I will give him credit for refusing the free healthcare ride. After all, he's set with the cash his family made with Dayton's and, more importantly, Target Corporation.

I'll stand back now and watch the puddle of kerosene before me ignite.

[KeyLimePi]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Who has it right? Who has it wrong? Are they both wrong? Are they both right

I know this is the wrong forum.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi 

I know this is the wrong forum.

How so?

[Cold Warrior]

It was in the Lounge. I moved it to the Pol/War Lounge.

[peeb]

Healthcare costs can quickly bankrupt even the relatively wealthy. The US needs universal healthcare that is free at the time of need.

[mduell]

What's the justification for government provided healthcare (all services for all users)? Why is healthcare different than food/housing?

A lot of people keep saying we "need" it, but they don't explain why it comes up as the best solution after an analysis of alternatives. Has an AoA even been done?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the justification for government provided healthcare (all services for all users)? Why is healthcare different than food/housing?

Because healthcare is an essential service that the market seems unable to provide reasonably. The govt steps in to provide all kinds of services that the market doesn't do well with like defense, policing, roads, food etc. Health care is different from food or housing in very many ways, but the govt does intervene in both the food and housing markets, ultimately providing both to people who can't afford them.

Of course, the govt also provides healthcare to people who can't afford it once they are bankrupt and turn up in an emergency ward, but that is about the worst and most expensive possible way to do it. Let's have a little more common sense in the way we do this. It would be like taking the food stamp system and getting people to go to emergency wards and be diagnosed as actually starving, and then given iv treatment. Very expensive, destructive and pointless.

[spacefreak]

I simply do not want the government making healthcare decisions for me. As I look around at other government-run entities, they are all run like crap. Now my healthcare is going to be entangled in this web? No friggin' way do I want that.

I'm all for providing for the poorest of citizens, and we do. But when I see people driving nice cars, living in nice dwellings, and watching big TVs, and then I hear them complain about not being able to afford health insurance, it's obvious to me where they place their priorities.

Back to government-supplied healthcare - what's wrong with the states dealing with this? Accountability as the local level, not some group far removed in Washington. At the very least, this makes much more sense to me.

Take a look at the VA healthcare system. Is that really what you want? Do you want to make your own decisions about your healthcare, or do you want Hillary Clinton deciding for you?

I'm all over the place here, because I am so against it on so many fronts. And I don't see a crisis whatsoever. It needs to be more affordable, and that should come with more efficiency across numerous healthcare industry fronts. But efficient the goverment is not, and if they can't run a healthcare system properly for the Veterans Administration, they sure as hell aren't going to be able to run it for the entire population.

If this is coming, opt me out and lease me a car instead. I'll manage my own healthcare.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I simply do not want the government making healthcare decisions for me. As I look around at other government-run entities, they are all run like crap.

I'm glad we don't have any sweeping generalizations going on. In this case, I'm sorry that it's rhetorically less interesting, but we're generally talking about govt manage health insurance, not care.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I'm all for providing for the poorest of citizens, and we do.

In the realm of health care we do this in the most spectacularly expensive and bad way possible.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Back to government-supplied healthcare - what's wrong with the states dealing with this?

Apart from the fact they are not doing it? Nothing.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

But efficient the goverment is not,

Govt run healthcare in the US is substantially more efficient than private.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I'll manage my own healthcare.

That's fine - under a rational system you will be allowed to have private healthcare if you want.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Because healthcare is an essential service that the market seems unable to provide reasonably. The govt steps in to provide all kinds of services that the market doesn't do well with like defense, policing, roads, food etc. Health care is different from food or housing in very many ways, but the govt does intervene in both the food and housing markets, ultimately providing both to people who can't afford them.

Of course, the govt also provides healthcare to people who can't afford it once they are bankrupt and turn up in an emergency ward, but that is about the worst and most expensive possible way to do it. Let's have a little more common sense in the way we do this. It would be like taking the food stamp system and getting people to go to emergency wards and be diagnosed as actually starving, and then given iv treatment. Very expensive, destructive and pointless.

I largely agree with your views. However, there's a government component / influence to some of the cost issues. For example, here in MN there's a law that requires an HMO to send patients multiple statements and descriptions of benefits as related to expenditures -- OoP and plan-covered. To received three or four pieces of mail for one doctor visit is common. In the end the government, the HMO and the doctor's office all pass these maintenance costs on to the patient. For some it's not an issue. For others it's a serious burden.

Thus far I've not seen a health plan that makes sense from Rep or Dem candidates. That's sad.

[peeb]

Well, quibbles with specific plans or admin policies is something else - I don't disagree that they could be improved.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I simply do not want the government making healthcare decisions for me. As I look around at other government-run entities, they are all run like crap. Now my healthcare is going to be entangled in this web? No friggin' way do I want that.

We're locking arms and marching on Washington for this issue, freak. I don't trust anyone in Washington to make healthcare choices for me. Our system isn't stable or responsible enough for the task -- Democrat and Republican alike.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by art_director 

We're locking arms and marching on Washington for this issue, freak. I don't trust anyone in Washington to make healthcare choices for me. Our system isn't stable or responsible enough for the task -- Democrat and Republican alike.

Again, we're not really talking about the govt making healthcare decisions for you, but intervening to provide everyone with insurance.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Govt run healthcare in the US is substantially more efficient than private.

Nothing the government does is efficient. It can't even seize tax dollars efficiently.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Quibbles nothing, they add up like charges on your 'free checking' account. It's damnn expensive when you look at a year's worth of statements. Then try having a kid. Truly absurd.

Well I agree - I'm in the same boat, but these are not issues that bear on this debate. I have fully private insurance, and they do the same stupid ****. I wish they didn't, but it's not to do with govt / vs private.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, quibbles with specific plans or admin policies is something else - I don't disagree that they could be improved.

Quibbles nothing, they add up like charges on your 'free checking' account. It's damnn expensive when you look at a year's worth of statements. Then try having a kid. Truly absurd.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Nothing the government does is efficient.

You are quite wrong. The administration costs associated with Medicare in the US are less than the those of private (between 2 and 4% admin for Medicare, outstanding, I think you will agree, vs between 14 and 30% for private).
While there is a lot of wrangling, I would say that most healthcare economists would put the true figures at somewhere around 4% for medicare, and 15% for private.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You are quite wrong. The administration costs associated with Medicare in the US are less than the those of private (about 4% admin for Medicare, outstanding, I think you will agree, vs about 14% average for private).

Your calculations - which are commonly promoted in similar, agenda-driven arguments - are faulty. Business costs are included in the private sector numbers (salaries, buildings, facilities), but are absent from the Medicare numbers you cite. Also missing from Medicare numbers are the costs of policymaking, legislative staffing and related costs, etc. And when tax dollars are seized and processed, no less than 20% of each dollar is lost due to bureaucratic inefficiency. Your Medicare numbers do not factor any of that in.

The private sector also earns a profit. No such luck for Medicare.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Your calculations - which are commonly misstated in similar arguments - are faulty.

Show me the calculations. Let me guess, you don't have any.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director 

We're locking arms and marching on Washington for this issue, freak.

OK, but if I get a sweet car provided for me by my opt-out, and perhaps a flat-screen TV as well, I'm going to drive home, sit in my air conditioning, and watch the rest of the rally on my couch.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

OK, but if I get a sweet car provided for me by my opt-out, and perhaps a flat-screen TV as well, I'm going to drive home, sit in my air conditioning, and watch the rest of the rally on my couch.

You don't really understand healthcare economics very well, do you?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Show me the calculations. Let me guess, you don't have any.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf

[peeb]

Ah yes, a minor far right wing think tank. Thanks. I'll take the mainstream health economics.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You don't really understand healthcare economics very well, do you

I don't claim to be an expert, no. I probably know less than you. That doesn't mean I want you dictating what's best for me. I can decide on my own. If health insurance is important to me, then I'll sacrifice for it.

If everyone and their mothers is going to get stuff provided for them as a result of seizing money from my neighbors (like health insurance), then at the very least I want to decide what to receive.

So opt me out and lease me a car instead.

[spacefreak]

If Medicare is so great, why does it and everyone associated with it lose money?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

If Medicare is so great, why does it and everyone associated with it lose money?

What are you talking about? It's a non-profit program - why do you think it should make money?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What are you talking about? It's a non-profit program - why do you think it should make money?

Show me a few years of breaking even at the very least.

My point is, look not only at Medicare itself, but also the people they cover, doctors, medical centers, etc... everyone who comes into contact with Medicare loses money.

[spacefreak]

Instead of using the government as your tool to confiscate your neighbors' money, I have a better idea...

Go to a neighbor or friend or family member and ask them to pay for your health insurance. They're going to be stuck with your bill anyway. At least this way, they will know who they are covering, and by cutting out the government on a grand scale, the nation will save tons of money.

Be nice when asking, and every 6 months be sure to send them a hand-written card thanking them and telling them of your progress. Include some photos as well.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Healthcare costs can quickly bankrupt even the relatively wealthy. The US needs universal healthcare that is free at the time of need.

Health care is never free. Everyone pays into a pool. Thats how it works in all the countries with universal health care.

Will never work in the U.S. for reasons I can't get into because I may get banned.

[BRussell]

The US government already spends more on health care (both per capita and as a % of GDP) than other countries that have universal health care. I want to repeat that: In the US, with its allegedly private health care system, the government spends more on health care than other countries that actually have government-run health care. It's insane.

I think the cause is overtreatment, and in particular, that we associate good health care with expensive hi-tech health care, whether it's actually good or not.