NHS - No Horrors Spared!

[Jenny_Jackson]

Is it any more moral to be forcefed a diet of capitalism for the benefit of the few, and not the many? I'm curious what you suggest, then? Are you so enamored of our current system you don't think it needs an overhaul? It's great to point out and make us all realize the failings of this proposal, but what, then, is the solution? American healthcare as it is now is deplorable.

It's very easy, McKenna.
The job of Government is to set standards, laws and create an environment of controlled free enterprise. It is NOT the job of government to compete in a business with entities already in the market.

As I see it, the insurance companies have grown fat and wealthy due to over pricing, an aggressive lobby in congress and lucrative tax incentives. This has created an environment where the insurance companies see themselves as above the law and free to do and charge as they please. This is a failure of government to do the job it's assigned because of "kick backs," special treatment by the lobbys and massive cash contributions to political re-election campaigns.

What the Health Care Reform Act should be doing is setting standards for both medical care and insurance pricing, standardizing the quality of health care in this country, repealing the "Estimated Probable Loss" clause in the IRS code and creating a limited agency to oversee complyance and make recomendations for improvement to congress for such things as improved technology, inflation etc.

 

[DesertPirate]

It's very easy, McKenna.
The job of Government is to set standards, laws and create an environment of controlled free enterprise. It is NOT the job of government to compete in a business with entities already in the market.

As I see it, the insurance companies have grown fat and wealthy due to over pricing, an aggressive lobby in congress and lucrative tax incentives. This has created an environment where the insurance companies see themselves as above the law and free to do and charge as they please. This is a failure of government to do the job it's assigned because of "kick backs," special treatment by the lobbys and massive cash contributions to political re-election campaigns.

What the Health Care Reform Act should be doing is setting standards for both medical care and insurance pricing, standardizing the quality of health care in this country, repealing the "Estimated Probable Loss" clause in the IRS code and creating a limited agency to oversee complyance and make recomendations for improvement to congress for such things as improved technology, inflation etc.

Damn Jenny, this makes more sense than99% of of the ideas I have heard.
Now to figure out a way to shove it up Washingtons collective ass.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Damn Jenny, this makes more sense than99% of of the ideas I have heard.
Now to figure out a way to shove it up Washingtons collective ass.

So you really think that congress is going to give up their "Junkets", campaign contributions and Kickbacks?

 

[DeeZire]

What the Health Care Reform Act should be doing is setting standards for both medical care and insurance pricing, standardizing the quality of health care in this country, repealing the "Estimated Probable Loss" clause in the IRS code and creating a limited agency to oversee complyance and make recomendations for improvement to congress for such things as improved technology, inflation etc.

This only addresses half the issue. The other half - rising costs - will continue. We already pay twice what others pay, but our health indexes don't reflect any added value. In fact, our health indexes rank lower than many other countries.

Today, a family can easily pay over $1000 per month just on premiums, not to mention out of pocket costs. This could easily double in the next ten years, due to the private enterprise aspect of health care.

What I don't get is the willingness of the public to shell out 1/4 or more of their income on a wasteful and inefficient system who's goal is to deny them coverage. But suggest to them that by paying more taxes, (which would amount to less than they're paying now for premiums) they could get free health care and they freak out. It's as if common sense has left the building. Is it an American trait to want to flush money down the drain?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This only addresses half the issue. The other half - rising costs - will continue. We already pay twice what others pay, but our health indexes don't reflect any added value. In fact, our health indexes rank lower than many other countries.

Today, a family can easily pay over $1000 per month just on premiums, not to mention out of pocket costs. This could easily double in the next ten years, due to the private enterprise aspect of health care.

What I don't get is the willingness of the public to shell out 1/4 or more of their income on a wasteful and inefficient system who's goal is to deny them coverage. But suggest to them that by paying more taxes, (which would amount to less than they're paying now for premiums) they could get free health care and they freak out. It's as if common sense has left the building. Is it an American trait to want to flush money down the drain?

Prices will always rise due to inflation. With the Lobbys working against us they are rising faster than either the cost of living or inflation index. That is what the government should be monitoring and controling, not getting into the insurance business. So, that said, what is needed is...
1) Regulations that deny the insurance companies the ability to pick and choose what they will cover or deny.
2) Price regulation with premium increases tied to a national index.
3) Price parity between Individual Policies and Group Insurance (Group is currently twice the cost of an individual policy even though they are very lucritive for the insurance carriers)
4) Contol of lobbying by the insurance companies
5) Reform of the tax incentives given to the insurance companies
6) Investigation by the FTC of illegal price fixing and collusion on the part of the major insurance companies and indictment of the officers found in violation.

So whey do the American taxpayers own 80% of AIG? And where are my dividends?

 

[Liar]

It's very easy, McKenna.
The job of Government is to set standards, laws and create an environment of controlled free enterprise. It is NOT the job of government to compete in a business with entities already in the market.

Like Blackwater?


ETA: not that you're wrong on the whole Washington bought/bad regulation/litigation madness thing. But I always find those categorical stances amusing. For your stance on Goverment and business to hold water, what are your explanations that some businesses, like the fightin' business, is extempt?

 

[Liar]

So whey do the American taxpayers own 80% of AIG? And where are my dividends?

I thought AIG was kind of in a shit hole and didn't produce any dividends right now.

If it does, it will go into the goverment finances to do whatever goverment does with money. Pay off debt (indirect dividends), lower taxes (direct dividends), buy or build something they think we need (material dividends), bail out the next collapse (preventive dividends) or waste it on something stupid (ok, no dividends in there).

 

[shereads]

Thank God I read this! I supported a public option until I realized that foreign nurses would bite off the toes of America's babies. I stand corrected.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The malpractice-insurance argument is a giant, rotting, red herring.

Americans for Insurance Reform, a coalition made up of Consumer Federation of America, ConsumerWatchdog.org and nearly 100 other public interest organizations, released a major study Wednesday on the state of the medical malpractice insurance industry. It found that insurance rates for doctors have dropped significantly while the medical malpractice insurers are earning record profits. The conclusion is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not crippling doctors and that large profits are going to the insurance industry.

Specifically, the study found, adjusting for inflation, that:

* Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
* Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
* Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
* In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.

As the health care debate heats up, there will be an increased effort to reduce the costs of health insurance. This study suggests that medical malpractice is not a significant cause of skyrocketing health costs. In fact, medical malpractice claims constitute one-fifth of one percent of annual health care costs in the country, according to the report. Cutting costs through medical malpractice reform is not likely to result in significant savings in health care reform legislation.

When people get hurt by medical errors, doctors and hospitals should be held liable. According to one study by the Institute of Medicine, 400,000 preventable injuries occur each year related to bad prescriptions alone. There are severe examples of people losing a limb or suffering permanent brain damage due to a doctor error.

The Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) is a national coalition supporting reforms to lower insurance rates, increase coverage, and make the insurance industry more consumer-friendly.

 

[McKenna]

It's very easy, McKenna.
The job of Government is to set standards, laws and create an environment of controlled free enterprise. It is NOT the job of government to compete in a business with entities already in the market.

As I see it, the insurance companies have grown fat and wealthy due to over pricing, an aggressive lobby in congress and lucrative tax incentives. This has created an environment where the insurance companies see themselves as above the law and free to do and charge as they please. This is a failure of government to do the job it's assigned because of "kick backs," special treatment by the lobbys and massive cash contributions to political re-election campaigns.

What the Health Care Reform Act should be doing is setting standards for both medical care and insurance pricing, standardizing the quality of health care in this country, repealing the "Estimated Probable Loss" clause in the IRS code and creating a limited agency to oversee complyance and make recomendations for improvement to congress for such things as improved technology, inflation etc.

I don't know, Jenny. I don't think it's as simple as that. The government can try to regulate insurance costs, but I don't see that working any better than regulating gas prices, alcohol, or Microsoft, for that matter. Do you see my point? Big business will always be that: Big.

I've lived in another country (Holland) with national healthcare. It works. It's not perfect, but at least everyone has access to healthcare. I see it work in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere. Why can't we learn from those examples, and build a better system? Folks would rather support a war for oil than provide healthcare for its citizens. There comes a time when the lone cowboy realizes it's time to rejoin the herd. What I mean is, individual freedom is awesome, but if we choose to live in society, we have obligations to said society. We can't be selfish individualists fighting for individual rights; we have to accept responsibility for our choice to live in society, and act on what is best for that society.

This only addresses half the issue. The other half - rising costs - will continue. We already pay twice what others pay, but our health indexes don't reflect any added value. In fact, our health indexes rank lower than many other countries.

Today, a family can easily pay over $1000 per month just on premiums, not to mention out of pocket costs. This could easily double in the next ten years, due to the private enterprise aspect of health care.

My husband was laid of from a fortune 500 company last September. We paid $700 per month for insurance, out of our own pockets (COBRA), for two people: Me, and my husband. $700?!

What I don't get is the willingness of the public to shell out 1/4 or more of their income on a wasteful and inefficient system who's goal is to deny them coverage. But suggest to them that by paying more taxes, (which would amount to less than they're paying now for premiums) they could get free health care and they freak out. It's as if common sense has left the building. Is it an American trait to want to flush money down the drain?

Amen. Those who would benefit the most from such a system oppose it the strongest. It makes no sense. If you wrap a turd in clear plastic, or you wrap turd in a pretty package, it's still a turd; the trick is in the marketing.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]There comes a time when the lone cowboy realizes it's time to rejoin the herd. What I mean is, individual freedom is awesome, but if we choose to live in society, we have obligations to said society. We can't be selfish individualists fighting for individual rights; we have to accept responsibility for our choice to live in society, and act on what is best for that society.[...]Those who would benefit the most from such a system oppose it the strongest. It makes no sense. If you wrap a turd in clear plastic, or you wrap turd in a pretty package, it's still a turd; the trick is in the marketing.

Yes. Opposition to healthcare reform must center on fear of government as its reason, since there is no rational argument for choosing the health of irresponsible corporations over the health of US citizens.

This isn't a fight for "individual rights" at all - insurance companies aren't in business to protect anyone's rights, let alone their health. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

 

[Edward Teach]

The malpractice-insurance argument is a giant, rotting, red herring.

Very true. The cost of malpractice in the U.S. is only about 1/2 of 1% (.005) of the cost of health care and most of that cost is simply the cost of malpractice, not the cost of malpractice insurance. If the medical professions would quit protecting doctors who practice bad medicine, the cost of malpractice (and subsequently the cost of insurance) would plummet, but they have never been very diligent in dealing with incompetence.

Also, the cost of administering insurance claims is astronomical, due in large part to the lack of standardized reporting, and accounts for about 1/3 of health care costs. Most doctors will have one nurse and then three or four people working in the office, mainly filing insurance forms.

My husband was laid of from a fortune 500 company last September. We paid $700 per month for insurance, out of our own pockets (COBRA), for two people: Me, and my husband. $700?!

Mack, believe it or not, you have a really good deal. I had to quit furnishing health insurance for my employees because the cost was about $1,000 per person. It was costing over $2,000 per month for my wife and me.

My biggest bitch with health insurance companies is that large companies can buy health insurance for less than 1/2 what small companies pay. It is tied simply to buying power and political power and has little to do with costs. A large contractor cannot buy lumber for 1/2 what I can go into Lowes and buy lumber for because lumber is priced according to cost. Health insurance is not tied closely to cost or everyone would pay more nearly the same price.

Edward the Ill

 

[DesertPirate]

Wrong. According to the bills being considered, the top one percent of wage earners will lose their Bush tax cut for the rich.

Looking back at the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, the tax burden on the rich was much higher than it is today. Did you notice what was in that last sentence - "prosperity", and "tax burden"? Granted, that was before globalization, but the point is that we can pay higher taxes and still prosper. I see it as a matter of personal responsibility. If we're going to enjoy government services such as Social Security and Medicare, we really ought to be willing to pay for them, rather than handing the bill to the next generation.

Wrong about the 60's tax burden, one of the 1st things JFK did was cut taxes to boost the economy. Something that wasn't done again until Reagan. Amazing what smart people have in common, isn't it?