|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote:
Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
VA & Medicare are better at controlling price it pays for the service it buys from doctors. They buy health care at a lower cost than private firms. The downside is that doctors flee from the VA system and many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients.
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote:
Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
This is a face-palm inducing comment. Insurance agencies don't have to do any research to find out the information THEY CAN'T USE. Many states make it illegal to offer different premiums regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle or must offer the same premium to everyone covered within a group. You might can this asymmetrical information, but that'd only be because the government stabbed both eyes out for the insurance company on this point.
Not all regulations are created equal. Some regulations are moral hazard inducing nightmares. Others are to compensate for regulations that are nightmares. The latter is less malignant than the former, but often the former is precisely what regulators are striving for. To evaluate a regulatory regime, you'd have to see what crap is in the regulations.
BTW, I don't see a single inkling of "economic logic" in any of your arguments. There is no concept of regulatory burden, of trade-offs, of future expectation, of moral hazard, of risk, of the ERP subsidy, of the tax system, etc. Maybe it's obvious to you, but you need to get those ideas out of your head and into your posts.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
|
On January 26 2011 18:03 Sworn wrote:
I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you.
Free healthcare would require a repeal of the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery (of doctors, nurses and medical supplies/drug manufacturers in this case... and you still have to feed + house slaves anyways). If you mean tax payer funded healthcare, then say it.
|
Wellpoint (one of largest health insurers in the country) just posted earnings. Made half a billion dollars in the last 3 months of 2010. Cool =]
|
On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote:
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem.
Do you know the cause of these financial problems and do you know what countries currently have these problems?
The other guy was pretty much spot on. The baby boom generation retirement wave is something which some countries have not taken into account. Its one of the reasons of the current financial problems, but the reasons differ per country.
Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
Can you back this up?
Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 27 2011 01:18 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer. Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
What are you asking for? Is this some kind of comparison based on statistics or metrics because I factor in more than that. The pattern of consumer choices is a guide for the directions the system may change. Countries like Germany, France, and UK are adopting many features of a for-profit system. Factors like excessive budget shortfalls or cost overruns is a sign of inevitable future declines in quality of service. Other factors like education subsidization, emigration of doctors, and poor medical school enrollment are also signs future problems.
You are also looking for a comparison to US health care system, a heterogeneous heavily regulated profit driven system with insurance as the choice delivery system. There are plenty of problems mostly stemming from regulation-driven moral hazard. It is an terrible baseline. There are regulatory difference between states, so analysis should be on a state-by-state basis factoring in neighbors rather than looking at the entire country in bulk.
I don't really want to provide a full analysis since this is going to be very much off-topic except maybe comparisons to the Switzerland model, which US is trying to emulate. If you really want to do this, pick a single country and I might start another topic. Any one country could take walls of text and references to demonstrate how the system is going fubar. That isn't to say that the US system is not going fubar. Perhaps this is an example of nations in different boats but headed for the same fate.
|
/////////FACEPALM
User was warned for this post
|
On January 27 2011 00:16 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 18:03 Sworn wrote:
I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you. Free healthcare would require a repeal of the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery (of doctors, nurses and medical supplies/drug manufacturers in this case... and you still have to feed + house slaves anyways). If you mean tax payer funded healthcare, then say it.
You don't have to post in a thread showing everyone your arogance. You know he was referring to universal healthcare funded by taxes.
|
America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat.
|
On January 27 2011 02:16 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 01:18 BroodjeBaller wrote:Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer. Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false. What are you asking for? Is this some kind of comparison based on statistics or metrics because I factor in more than that. The pattern of consumer choices is a guide for the directions the system may change. Countries like Germany, France, and UK are adopting many features of a for-profit system. Factors like excessive budget shortfalls or cost overruns is a sign of inevitable future declines in quality of service. Other factors like education subsidization, emigration of doctors, and poor medical school enrollment are also signs future problems. You are also looking for a comparison to US health care system, a heterogeneous heavily regulated profit driven system with insurance as the choice delivery system. There are plenty of problems mostly stemming from regulation-driven moral hazard. It is an terrible baseline. There are regulatory difference between states, so analysis should be on a state-by-state basis factoring in neighbors rather than looking at the entire country in bulk. I don't really want to provide a full analysis since this is going to be very much off-topic except maybe comparisons to the Switzerland model, which US is trying to emulate. If you really want to do this, pick a single country and I might start another topic. Any one country could take walls of text and references to demonstrate how the system is going fubar. That isn't to say that the US system is not going fubar. Perhaps this is an example of nations in different boats but headed for the same fate.
Thats a lot of words to basicly say nothing at all.
You just make assumptions based on false assumptions.
Way to go.
|
On January 27 2011 02:59 ToxNub wrote:
America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat.
Diversity gives us strength, it is what makes America great. Canada might want to split from Quebec but in America we go by: united we stand, united we fall.
|
On January 27 2011 04:09 Apexplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 02:59 ToxNub wrote:
America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat. Diversity gives us strength, it is what makes America great. Canada might want to split from Quebec but in America we go by: united we stand, united we fall.
Tell that to the majority of the vocal Tea Partiers who believe anyone left of extreme-right is un-american, socialist, marxist, and/or a Nazi.
|
Ignoring the obvious redirection of topic, the blatant misrepresentation that Canada wants to split from quebec and not the other way around, the dated nature of that claim, and let's examine the evidence for Quebec's past contributions to political deadlock.
1. .... ?
Can you help me out?
If you think getting nowhere, wasting taxpayer money, and being able to agree on nothing while sladering each other makes you great, then I suggest your next congressional debate be held over redefining your misguided patriotism. I will check back in 2140 to see how it turned out.
|
On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote:
Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
VA & Medicare are better at controlling price it pays for the service it buys from doctors. They buy health care at a lower cost than private firms. The downside is that doctors flee from the VA system and many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients.
False.
Doctors who work for the VHA are paid slightly less but they enjoy benefits and status not given to other doctors. There are quite a few benefits to working for the VHA.
On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote:
Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
This is a face-palm inducing comment. Insurance agencies don't have to do any research to find out the information THEY CAN'T USE. Many states make it illegal to offer different premiums regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle or must offer the same premium to everyone covered within a group. You might can this asymmetrical information, but that'd only be because the government stabbed both eyes out for the insurance company on this point. Not all regulations are created equal. Some regulations are moral hazard inducing nightmares. Others are to compensate for regulations that are nightmares. The latter is less malignant than the former, but often the former is precisely what regulators are striving for. To evaluate a regulatory regime, you'd have to see what crap is in the regulations. BTW, I don't see a single inkling of "economic logic" in any of your arguments. There is no concept of regulatory burden, of trade-offs, of future expectation, of moral hazard, of risk, of the ERP subsidy, of the tax system, etc. Maybe it's obvious to you, but you need to get those ideas out of your head and into your posts.
What? Where are your sources?
First of all, even if insurance companies must provide the same basic level of insurance at a certain price to all residents regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle, they still have dozens of other factors they can use to change the price they charge. Here in CA you can pay more just because you've had ill-health before.
Second, usually the better insurance options DO scale in price by age and in other factors. Often patients will be forced into taking a risk by buying the cheapest plan, or playing it safe and paying big sums of money for a slightly better plan.
A lot of the time some misfortune befalls someone who couldn't afford to pay for a better insurance policy, and they end up going into debt because of medical bills. Roughly 60% of personal bankruptcies in this country cite medical bills as an aggravating factor.
On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
False, again.
Wait times in the UK and Germany are shorter than the wait times in the U.S. Both countries spend less money on healthcare than the U.S. (heck, EVERYONE does.) There is no "poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc." Their health standards are better than here, and citizens are not afraid of going to the doctor because of the risk of medical bankruptcy.
You'd be harder pressed to find a good doctor in many parts of the rural U.S. or even in cities like Detroit, let alone a specialist.
On January 26 2011 16:25 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 13:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 12:46 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:32 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 11:37 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:
[quote]
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010. As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years. You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even. Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for". You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face. Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new. You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice. Let me try to lay it out here. Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities. This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting. I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences. IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified. Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill. Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms. The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill. Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here. Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid... Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut. This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine. EXACTLY. You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade. Get your facts straight. There is a doc fix in this bill that DOES cut payments to Medicare doctors, providers and physicians starting six years from now. The problem is that this will be repealed (like they do every year) and that "savings" will not be realized. Here's another good article if you want to read it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089702354292100.htmlA good article by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin explaining the gimmicks in this bill.
Ugh....no there is not. If you wish to continue spreading this lie, at least come up with a source that fabricates it in print decently.
Secondly, that 'nother "good" article is just that same guy again, on a different publication. You can come up with OP ED articles by the dozen, and I bet I will be able to find three times as many articles in standard print and in editorials that claim the opposite.
|
On January 26 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:24 DamnCats wrote:One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions LOL covering people with pre-existing conditions (aka your fucking diabetic grandmother) is a PROBLEM? Jesus christ. You can either have half the country getting fucked by pre-existing conditions or you can mandate everyone has to have health insurance at all times so they cannot just apply when something is wrong. There is no middle ground. From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)? Your post is typical of the whole problem with the health care debate. Too many people get wrapped up in emotions and the "feel good" intentions without thinking about what actually is economically feasible. It's a very small-minded approach to the debate. Any reform of healthcare necessarily requires sacrifices. Right now, a lot of people don't fully understand what Obamacare sacrificed, yet more and more are figuring it out and discovering that they don't like it.
So private insurers are told to pay for something without getting any compensation? Are you really thinking that there will not be an adequate compensation for the cost? The government bailed out banks which ruined tons of peoples fortunes and they wont help insurers which actually help people? Obviously they wont do that because health insurance doesnt make as much profit and that is all you people care about.
Too many people are only thinking about their own damn wallet and dont care about those grandmas with problems. Sure it is much cheaper to let them die earlier, but it also makes you a greedy little [insert whatever worst personal insult you can come up with].
We NEED to have our societies become more friendly towards each other or within themselves or we will in fact end up with a society like the one portraied in Robocop with companies running the cities and governments - which people voted for - not existing anymore. It is also much too easy to build a bomb and dissatisfied people are prone to overreact sometimes and bombs can kill wayy too many people for their cost. Just look at the Oklahoma City bombing to see what one man can do.
|
From an economic standpoint the current healthcare situation in the U.S. isn't helpful for companies anyway.
A lot of U.S. companies that have to compete overseas will move jobs to other countries because they don't want to lose money by providing their employees with an insurance package. GM, Ford, etc. have all complained about the losses they incur because of their workforce concentrations here and how it basically forces them to spend billions of dollars on insurance programs for their employees. Toyota, Honda, and the European car makers don't have to contend with this issue very much, because health insurance is provided by the government in those countries.
Either way, the net effect on the consumer is pretty much the same in terms of cost. In fact, it's better in countries with a well-organized public health system because it's more streamlined and fairer than with private companies. No, governments aren't completely efficient, but it's way better to standardize something as essential as healthcare rather than put it in the hands of hundreds of private companies who are in search of a profit.
As an analogy, do we have privatized police and fire services? No, because we can't really trust them to be effective. It also just doesn't make sense: if you have the misfortune of being mugged or having your house burned down, are you the one who is forced to pay? If we had privatized fire and police services, how would we know that the services aren't reduced in order to reduce costs and make more money?
Another example is the military. We've seen what private contractors do (take Blackwater, for example). We see pretty much the same mentality and incompetence among insurance companies, yet Americans continue to defend the almost completely privatized (and completely garbage) system we have for healthcare right now.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 27 2011 11:50 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote:
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer. False, again. Wait times in the UK and Germany are shorter than the wait times in the U.S. Both countries spend less money on healthcare than the U.S. (heck, EVERYONE does.) There is no "poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc." Their health standards are better than here, and citizens are not afraid of going to the doctor because of the risk of medical bankruptcy.
First of all, what a terrible mess.
There is a too much to look when talking about "Europe and Japan. Their systems are different in details. It's also valuable to have forward looking perspective to see where the system will take you rather than just looking backwards.
Here's a taste of what is needed to put numbers, statistics, and metrics in perspective. If we are talking about Germany, the system is largely privatized but heavily regulated - a bit of overview: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/. Reinhardt misses that a lot of cost cutting is carried by underpaid doctors, so there's doctor flight: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html. Education is subsidized and the true cost of system should add in education subsidies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716556/. There is the budget shortfalls, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-06/merkel-raises-german-health-premiums-to-15-5-of-gross-pay-to-plug-deficit.html. There are more factors to look at, but the overall trend in Germany is towards more privatization and cuts in benefits.
Long wait times are worst in Canada. US is poor as well and relatively you might say UK and the such look good, but objectively it's terrible everywhere. Poor distribution of specialist and poor geographical distribution is a Japanese problem. There is some rural unavailability and a shortage of obstetrics. US has poor distribution as well with most the talent gravitating towards sports medicine, cosmetics, and radiology and away from the heavily regulated areas or most vulnerable to malpractice. US has the AMA regulatory guidelines to thank for constricting physician supply. You can probably point out more problems with the US system.
Anyways, saying that a foreign system is relative better or worse at this specific moment in time is neither here nor there in judging that system. I can complain about the US system, too. The real issue is whether the system is good and whether it is sustainable. Also when looking to replicate foreign systems, it is highly necessary to look at all factors involved. The German system is not just a tax on employees. Highly crucial to its "success" is enough regulatory power to depress or fix prices and nearly complete subsidization of education so they can have workers willing to accept the depressed prices.
I believe the ACA is going to be an unmitigated disaster precisely because it is missing some crucial pieces around the individual mandate to control costs and ensure supply. Those pieces like price setting regulator power and education would not have been palatable to Americans, so we got this half step which is worse than doing nothing at all. And even if we could copy the entire system, there is the question of whether it is prudent to adopt a system that is presently moving in the opposite directions and and showing chinks in sustainability.
I guess all these ACA proponents want to pigeon-hole my position as "objectively defending the status quo." I haven't done that at all. It's an alternative critique which also applies to all of the European systems. You folks can go on slamming the US health care system for how much it sucks.
On a side note, Professor Reinhardt, the author of the economix blog, is always worth reading because of interesting observations. It's true even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 28 2011 08:12 wherebugsgo wrote:
From an economic standpoint the current healthcare situation in the U.S. isn't helpful for companies anyway.
A lot of U.S. companies that have to compete overseas will move jobs to other countries because they don't want to lose money by providing their employees with an insurance package. GM, Ford, etc. have all complained about the losses they incur because of their workforce concentrations here and how it basically forces them to spend billions of dollars on insurance programs for their employees. Toyota, Honda, and the European car makers don't have to contend with this issue very much, because health insurance is provided by the government in those countries.
Either way, the net effect on the consumer is pretty much the same in terms of cost. In fact, it's better in countries with a well-organized public health system because it's more streamlined and fairer than with private companies. No, governments aren't completely efficient, but it's way better to standardize something as essential as healthcare rather than put it in the hands of hundreds of private companies who are in search of a profit.
As an analogy, do we have privatized police and fire services? No, because we can't really trust them to be effective. It also just doesn't make sense: if you have the misfortune of being mugged or having your house burned down, are you the one who is forced to pay? If we had privatized fire and police services, how would we know that the services aren't reduced in order to reduce costs and make more money?
Another example is the military. We've seen what private contractors do (take Blackwater, for example). We see pretty much the same mentality and incompetence among insurance companies, yet Americans continue to defend the almost completely privatized (and completely garbage) system we have for healthcare right now.
What explains the competitive difference between GM, Ford in Michigan vs. Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda in Texas, Indiana, and Alabama?? It must be the private nature of the health care system!...that they all have...
French and Germans would consider their system a private system. Swiss has a private system, too. All their health providers are private clinics or hospitals.
Fire protection service has been privately offered before and it was effective. In fact, in Southern California, it is the public system that is failing and giving private companies a chance: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/30/privatizing_fire_protection/. I think more homeowners are asking why their publicly funded fire service has such a poor budget and provides such poor service.
Again, no mention of moral hazard, regulatory burden, group and community rates, ERP subsidies, mandatory coverage, mandatory insurance rates, etc.
You keep repeating "private," but you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean next time. Last time I checked, Medicare and Medicaid was about 20% of total health care outlays making the US system at least 20% publicly funded, and it's not like other systems don't incorporate nearly 100% private providers.
|
Kinda blows my mind that one of the biggest things Obama campaigned on, health care reform, meets so much opposition.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 27 2011 03:18 BroodjeBaller wrote:
Thats a lot of words to basicly say nothing at all.
You just make assumptions based on false assumptions.
Way to go.
You asked for sources in general about the whole post. It is a lot more messy than one shout for "sources!" will command. Health care systems are complicated.
I prefer complicated. It give people an nuanced understanding of the world. If you don't like complicated, I can offer you vacuousness, instead. I can even put that in a neat little gift box for you.
On January 28 2011 15:20 Bosu wrote:
Kinda blows my mind that one of the biggest things Obama campaigned on, health care reform, meets so much opposition.
The details were underwhelming AND the stuff coming out of Massachusetts all point to disaster. Hey, it's been tried for four years already!
|
i donno whats more tragic... the way congress has acted or the fact that they got elected into office in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
