I Suppose We Should Thank Joe Wilson

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

OR the private insurance co's can bring their prices down to competitive rates. They will not go hungry, they will not go starving... they will finally just start charging FAIR prices. Maybe their CEO's will have to take a cut on their bajillion dollar bonuses-- Oh my! What will they do with themselves??

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's pass a law that every single American is required to purchase their products, or face a monetary fine!

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,426]

>If you subsidize one insurance company (the government run one) to the tune
>of a trillion bucks, so they can give stuff away for free, how's that "competition"?

You - and several other posters - have listed all the reasons that government health care will be horrible. Why not give people a choice? Surely if the government option is anywhere near as horrible as conservatives make it out to be, people will flock to private companies to avoid it.

>Which is better, the free Yugo or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the
>Yugo, that proves it's better?

The public option is not free. A better example is "What's better? The $8K Yugo or the $200K Ferrari?" Why not let people choose which car they prefer? Why not let people who can't afford the Ferrari buy the Yugo?

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

???

If you subsidize one insurance company (the government run one) to the tune of a trillion bucks, so they can give stuff away for free, how's that "competition"?

The same way private universities compete for students against government-subsidized schools. People do a cost/benefit analysis and make their choice. It doesn't look like the private schools are all the worse for wear from that competition.

Quote

Which is better, the free Yugo or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the Yugo, that proves it's better?

Which is better $50k a year at Harvard or $5k a year at SUNY Buffalo? Seems like people appreciate having the choice of both options.

[TomAiello 25]

Ideally, I think you'd have a set deductible of around $3000, then fund each person's HSA to about $1000 each year. If your HSA balance exceeds $3000, you're allowed to transfer the excess to your personal bank account. It gives everyone an incentive to save money, because it's going to be their own money. The most anyone faces out of pocket is $2000 in a year, which is unlikely to cause a bankruptcy or home loss (hospitals already take bills like that and turn them into $50/month payment plans).

Of course, the chance of getting that through Congress is negligible.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Insurance companies have had many decades to come up with affordable plans that cover people with pre-existing conditions, including the universal pre-existing condition of getting old (happens to all of us). So far, they have not expressed any interest in competing for this "market". The same applied to retired people, which led to the introduction of Medicare. At the time the insurance industry, and conservatives, decried the "government takeover" and claimed that it was the beginning of the end of the private insurance industry. Obviously that hasn't happened. Why not? Because there isn't really any competition, private industry never had any interest in the elderly market, it just doesn't pay enough. So, why would a plan that would cover people who private insurance won't touch with a ten-foot pole (those with pre-existing conditions) be a threat to the insurance industry? And, how long do we give the industry to come up with their solution to the problem? 50 years? 100? Forever?

Don

HMOs usually have no pre-existing condition clauses. I've found their coverage to be great, but they criticized for other things. Do you propose that the govt insurance plan should only be for those with pre-existing conditions?

What you describe sounds like an anti-trust problem, like there is price-fixing/benefit-fixing and such. I can accept that is quite possible. Such problems have happened with other industries. Government as a new competitor is not the proper remedy for price-fixing. How should the govt decide exactly how "competitive" their plan should be? Wouldn't that be price fixing?

Single payer government run health care in other countries has lots problems and complaints. How do you think our system would be different to avoid the same problems? Why don't other countries fix their problems?

If you want a single payer govt system, then admit it. To pretend that you want a govt option just to add some competition isn't being honest, I think.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Ideally, I think you'd have a set deductible of around $3000, then fund each person's HSA to about $1000 each year. If your HSA balance exceeds $3000, you're allowed to transfer the excess to your personal bank account. It gives everyone an incentive to save money, because it's going to be their own money. The most anyone faces out of pocket is $2000 in a year, which is unlikely to cause a bankruptcy or home loss (hospitals already take bills like that and turn them into $50/month payment plans).

Of course, the chance of getting that through Congress is negligible.

If only something like that would be aggressively proposed, who knows?

Many years ago Jack Kemp broached the subject of doing something besides employer-based insurance. He suggested that people should get insurance through other organizations to which they belong (USPA, bowling association, unions, NHRA, NRA, whatever). Such associations are at least as big as employers, so insurance companies still see them as big "pools". If employers actually paid people what they now paid in health premiums (a separate challenge to be sure, but possible), it would be very interesting. You would get job-portability and lots of choices. The point is that there are other choices than using a govt plan, unless of course your real goal is a single payer system by driving private companies out of business.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Private insurance companies exist to make a profit, not to provide health care to anybody and everybody. Obviously they can maximize profits by signing up young, healthy customers and purging those likely to cost them money (older people, those with pre-existing conditions). Additionally, pressure on share prices from investors feeds the need to drop "unprofitable" customers. For large-enrollment group plans, people are largely shielded from these forces as insurance companies will accept some money-losers to get access to the large pool of profitable customers. For small businesses, a single employee with a pre-existing condition can cause premiums for the whole business to climb several-fold, so often the business owner must either get rid of that employee or drop coverage for everybody. If you are looking for an individual policy and you have had a bout with cancer or a heart attack, the premium will have to cover expected medical expenses, administrative costs, and profit, with no healthy people in the pool to dilute the cost. It isn't necessarily a matter of anti-trust or price fixing, it's just that no insurance company can cover those costs and make a profit if they can't "bundle" the high-risk person with several low-risk people. Market forces on their own work to ensure that such people will never be attractive to private insurance.

Since private insurance is not interested in those people, covering them in some manner through a government-operated plan would not actually compete with private insurance. This is the same as the argument that insuring the elderly through medicare has not wiped out private insurers, because private insurers don't want those customers in the first place. I am suspicious of the idea that a new bureaucracy is needed, though, as it seems to me these people could be accommodated in medicare just as the disabled currently are. Even if they were to pay an additional premium on top of regular medicare payroll deductions (if they are working), their coverage could be more cost-efficient as they would not be contributing to the (very large) profit and administrative expenses charged by private insurers. To enroll, people would have to demonstrate that private coverage is not available for a reasonable premium (say 10% of their annual income).

I do not favor a single-payer system, as I think that puts too much power in the hand of the insurer and doctors tend to get screwed. I do favor the idea that routine costs should be paid by the patient, ideally with funds from a tax-exempt medical savings account that could accumulate from year to year. Insurance should only kick in to cover extraordinary expenses that otherwise would threaten to wipe out the patient financially. On the other hand, doctors and hospitals should be more transparent about what they charge so patients can be informed consumers.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm afraid scientific methods have curtailed your full mental capability;

TRANSLATION: you prefer non-scientific methods so you can fill in the blanks. Shall we get 3 hillbillies with coins to flip?

Quote

kind of like a new pilot never learning to navigate without a gps. It's called deadreckoning.

Thx for the flying lesson, I don't have a lot of hours but I've been flying w/my dad since I was 5 and licensed at 20.

Quote

If medicare, medicaid, social security, the US Post Office, Amtrack, Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac are broke and mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

About like the military and Iraq/Afghanistan, a gross wasted expenditure; I guess Republicans find that immune tho.

See, when the gov runs something, there's waste, but usually in administrative roles, hiring too many people and just operating inefficiently but that creates jobs. Whne government operations are run by a private corporation, they sometimes run more efficiently and the excess from fewer jobs goes into the corporate coffers. In many cases, fraudulent billings and general corporate corruption often far exceed governmental waste. But to look at a country's medical svs as a business decision choosing who gets what and how much versus everyone gets medical attention is.... let's say, very American of you. Civilized countries don't make that a business decision like we do.

Quote

I like mine the way it is; no bannana for you tonight.

I don't want your bannana, but enough of the ghey metaphor

You can like your medical coverage the way it is and others still have access; just can't figure out why some Americans want to phohibit other Americans from having access to medical coverage WHEN IT WON'T COST THE PROHIBITING INDIVIDUAL A DIME.

EDITED TO ADD: You must have waited a lifetime to find a place to use your sig line in a post.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Maybe the government should just protect the public, but that's kind of hard when the main healthcare architect, Democrat Senator Max Baucus has been on the take from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for years.

Wait, gov should protect the people, but you want to provision for REAL HC for people who are indigent or low income. Please, no tax credit rhetoric, people who earn 15k a year don't pay anything measureable in taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

As with most right-leaning propaganda, it doesn't hit the bullet points. I skimmed it and found nothing but theory. Obama gave a proposition with bullet points, I've read McCain give a proposition with bullets, all I ask is that you give me a refined proposition with points. Here's one with my comments in bold:

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/...re_Reform_Republican

1) States, small businesses, and others could group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans.

- You must be employed, a lapse in employment = a lapse in coverge if COBRA expires and even then very expensive.

2) Medicaid users could take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer them to a private health care plan.

- Taking the discretion from the government and giving it to HMO death squads. This one is about as deceptive as the idea to put your retirement into 401k's before the crash.

3) People, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, would receive incentives to build up health care savings accounts.

- Right, IOW's, pay or go without healthcare.

4) Employers would automatically sign up their workers for health insurance, so that employees would have to opt out of coverage if they didn't want it.

- Not really a big change from where it is now. The vast majority of employees sign up as it is, they just have $500/mo premium pays.

5) Tax deductions on insurance premiums for people who get their plans individually or from their companies.

- And if you make 0, a tax deduction is just what the doctor ordered. This is just another tax shelter for well-off people who buy private ins now. How does teh GOP think we are so stupid?

And Tom, where do indigent people get covered here? Yea, that's what I though. I think you just answered the question. BTW, if you care to extrapolate that mess you sent me minus the nationalist bravado in that article, refine what their solution/proposal is, which is probably about like what I posted here, then I will jump back on it.

[TomAiello 25]

Honestly, dude, at this point I'm having this discussion with Wendy, hopefully. You're welcome to listen in, but I'm more interested in an actual discussion where I learn things than an argument on this one.

Quote

And Tom, where do indigent people get covered here? Yea, that's what I though. I think you just answered the question.

See, this is why I want a discussion. Wendy and I already talked about that. You'd fund the HSA of every citizen, and cover them all with a high deductible, government funded insurance policy. Indigent people get covered there, too. But you're just ignoring the answers to your questions, because you want to argue.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here's an easier one:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Page 164 states we are still 37th, as we were in 2000, this data is data 2008 I believe. Overall distribution and fairness we rate with Turkey and really horribly, taht's the theme, we have the ability to provide, just that greed drives the system. Actually after looking at that data I think this may be a 2000 chart that was written about in 2008. The data is massive, but do you think HC has gotten better since 2000? By that I mean better for everyone, not just the elite.

That's the 2000 report. Now, strip out the "that's not fair" bullcrap which has NOTHING to do with efficacy and look at the responsiveness score - THAT is what shows how well the medical establishment is doing it's job.

The rest of their 'statistics' are a smokescreen for pushing socialized medicine.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sundevil777 94]

If libs in congress and sir hope and change want to propose a govt plan designed specifically for those with pre-existing conditions and such, that is something they could do.

It isn't what they have done. They have designed a public option designed to cover anyone that would be subsidized to the point that employers would find it much cheaper than what they currently offer. This is how it would drive private insurance out of business.

Sir hope and change says he isn't interested in destroying private insurance, but that is a lie. By offering a govt plan that is so much cheaper (artificially, calling it competition), it will destroy private insurance. He should not pretend it isn't his intention.

If price fixing/benefit fixing/whatever sort of anti-competitive practice is the problem, the govt becoming the competition is not the right remedy. By destroying the companies I suppose that some would claim it takes care of the problem.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wmw999 2,146]

So this wouldn't impact the employer-based insurance, but would take over the currently-uninsured, along with Medicare and Medicaid?

One thing -- apparently right now a high-deductible policy option for the currently uninsured will end up with families needing to pay 8000 or so out of pocket per year. I'm assuming that they're figuring that by removing Medicare and Medicaid they'd mitigate the higher-cost pre-existing condition folks. I'm not sure the numbers add up. While the current plan sounds appalling (few are going to go for a plan that will mandate an $8000/year cost), I'm not sure that the costs that make it lower-cost reconcile with the same costs that would reduce the one we're discussing to a max 2 or 3000.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Maybe the government should just protect the public, but that's kind of hard when the main healthcare architect, Democrat Senator Max Baucus has been on the take from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for years.

Wait, gov should protect the people, but you want to provision for REAL HC for people who are indigent or low income. Please, no tax credit rhetoric, people who earn 15k a year don't pay anything measureable in taxes.

No matter if it's $2.00, everyone should participate in paying taxes (Unfortunately, it's part of the American system). Getting back to the subject, the government should be protecting people from the insurance and healthcare industry that preys upon the public. Secondly, anyone receiving BRIBES, like Max Baucus, should be prosecuted.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's an easier one:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Page 164 states we are still 37th, as we were in 2000, this data is data 2008 I believe. Overall distribution and fairness we rate with Turkey and really horribly, taht's the theme, we have the ability to provide, just that greed drives the system. Actually after looking at that data I think this may be a 2000 chart that was written about in 2008. The data is massive, but do you think HC has gotten better since 2000? By that I mean better for everyone, not just the elite.

That's the 2000 report. Now, strip out the "that's not fair" bullcrap which has NOTHING to do with efficacy and look at the responsiveness score - THAT is what shows how well the medical establishment is doing it's job.

The rest of their 'statistics' are a smokescreen for pushing socialized medicine.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't read the whole 215 pages.

There's no, "that's not fair" bullshit with the WHO, just data. I've read several articles on the WHO and they all use that 2000 data. I'm guessing it's because that's the most recent data that has been assessed and ranked, as there is such a massive amount of data they don't assess it very often. But that is the world-recognized data.

If they had some liberal agenda to push soc med, they could have ranked the US lower. It's no mystery that the US distribution of wealth is similar to that of Communist nations and the data and subsequent reports support that. So a liberal agenda, the people in the black helicopters over your house, could be easily enacted by ranking the, 100th. I suppose these people have a liberal agenda too:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009

We're such a peaceful nation, how could they be so liberal as to say we're damn near 100 of 140?

All I ask is that die-hard Republicans keep it so they can go teh way of the Whig and we can get a new Republican Party in.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Maybe the government should just protect the public, but that's kind of hard when the main healthcare architect, Democrat Senator Max Baucus has been on the take from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for years.

Wait, gov should protect the people, but you want to provision for REAL HC for people who are indigent or low income. Please, no tax credit rhetoric, people who earn 15k a year don't pay anything measureable in taxes.

No matter if it's $2.00, everyone should participate in paying taxes (Unfortunately, it's part of the American system). Getting back to the subject, the government should be protecting people from the insurance and healthcare industry that preys upon the public. Secondly, anyone receiving BRIBES, like Max Baucus, should be prosecuted.

It does matter if it's $2.00 or $2k, that's the issue here. And yes, it is unfirtunate it is part of the American system to exclude people due to class.

Quote

Secondly, anyone receiving BRIBES, like Max Baucus, should be prosecuted.

This is the crux of what is the Republican mess. Impeach Clinton, give Libby (obstruction, perjury) a semi-free ride and Larry Craig (shopping cock in an airport shitter/Mr Morality) a totally free ride. Instead of looking at the issue, they look to the person and eventually enough Republicans defected. (BTW, I posted both people to explain the issues: Was it a BJ or a lie).

So I don't know of the Payola to which you refer, but it's just typical RW attack everything but the issue politics and I thank you and yours, as that's what's making my party strong.

Quote

Getting back to the subject, the government should be protecting people from the insurance and healthcare industry that preys upon the public.

The problem is that they're mostly Republicans and Republican financiers. It's the fox watching the chicken coop. The Republicans have run this country for 20 of teh last 28 years, run it into the ground, they've had their chances to fiz HC several times, esp in 1993 and the all-Republican Congress from 1995 wouldn't send Clinton a bill to sign or veto. Now we have a great man in the WH who is willing to stake his presidency on HC and so we should implement something that will work for everyone.

But how about protecting indigent people from insurance companies? They don't need protecting because they don't get to play. This is where the Republicans have shown their classist views; indigent people don't matter.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's an easier one:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Page 164 states we are still 37th, as we were in 2000, this data is data 2008 I believe. Overall distribution and fairness we rate with Turkey and really horribly, taht's the theme, we have the ability to provide, just that greed drives the system. Actually after looking at that data I think this may be a 2000 chart that was written about in 2008. The data is massive, but do you think HC has gotten better since 2000? By that I mean better for everyone, not just the elite.

That's the 2000 report. Now, strip out the "that's not fair" bullcrap which has NOTHING to do with efficacy and look at the responsiveness score - THAT is what shows how well the medical establishment is doing it's job.

The rest of their 'statistics' are a smokescreen for pushing socialized medicine.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't read the whole 215 pages.

And you'd be sawing the limb off behind you if you did.

Quote

There's no, "that's not fair" bullshit with the WHO, just data.

What would the category "fairness in financial contribution" be, then?

Quote

I've read several articles on the WHO and they all use that 2000 data. I'm guessing it's because that's the most recent data that has been assessed and ranked, as there is such a massive amount of data they don't assess it very often. But that is the world-recognized data.

Correct - that's the latest one

Quote

If they had some liberal agenda to push soc med, they could have ranked the US lower. It's no mystery that the US distribution of wealth is similar to that of Communist nations and the data and subsequent reports support that. So a liberal agenda, the people in the black helicopters over your house, could be easily enacted by ranking the, 100th. I suppose these people have a liberal agenda too:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009

We're such a peaceful nation, how could they be so liberal as to say we're damn near 100 of 140?

Because they're basing on the same bullshit criteria WHO is?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What would the category "fairness in financial contribution" be, then?

You could have researched that, but you have me for that.

http://boards.hbo.com/topic/Maher-Member-Created/Heathcare-Rankings-37th/1900013663

The weights on variables are 25% level of health, 25% distribution of health, 25% level and distribution of responsiveness, and 25% fairness of financial contribution.

Here's a breakdown of rankings for Canada, the UK, France and the US...

Health Level - (France - 3), (US - 24), (UK - 14), (Canada - 12)
Health Distribution - (France - 12), (US - 32), (UK - 2), (Canada - 18)

Responsiveness Level - (France - 16-17), (US - 1), (UK - 26?27), (Canada - 7?8)
Responsiveness Distribution - (France - 3?38), (US - 3?38), (UK - 3?38), (Canada - 3?38)

Fairness in financial contribution - (France - 26?29), (US - 54?55), (UK - 8?11), (Canada - 17?19)

Overall goal attainment - (France - 6), (US - 15), (UK - 9), (Canada - 7)

Health expenditure per capita in $ - (France - 4), (US - 1 - most expensive), (UK - 26), (Canada - 10)

On level of Health - (France - 4), (US - 72), (UK - 24), (Canada - 35)

Overall health system performance - (France - 1), (US - 37), (UK - 18), (Canada - 30)


It's a ratio, here's an explanation of it:

http://www.who.int/health-systems-performance/current_work/cw_fairfin.htm

The US sucks in healthcare, real hard to argue that.

Quote

Because they're basing on the same bullshit criteria WHO is?

Yes, the truth; what a set of criteria to base a study upon. Are you now saying the Global Peace Index is wrong? http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009

Is it unbelievable that a country of 4% of the world population virtually matching the other 96% in military spedning (more with Iraq War) is not a peaceful nation? Under Bush the US has ignored the UN over Iraq, engaged in a fruitless war, as well as amyriad of other things, so were were 96 om 2007, 97 in 2008 and after Obama takes office now we're 83. We're a militant country and then data and ranking supports that. I don't see how this is difficult to fathom. Here's this:

http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm

- Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.[1] The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers

- U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict.

- U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999

- 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.[4]


Those liberals calling us unpeaceful....all I can't figure out is how they put Iraq below us.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

So this wouldn't impact the employer-based insurance, but would take over the currently-uninsured, along with Medicare and Medicaid?

From an economic standpoint, it would be better if it supplanted the employment-based system, as well. The employment-based healthcare system we have in this country is a bizarre anomaly created by WWII wage caps.

One way to transition would be to have employers contribute what they are currently putting toward health plans into the MSA for each employee, instead.

Better, from an economic efficiency standpoint, would be to simply end the tax advantage of employer provided healthcare, and have employers simply pay their employees those dollars instead.

Quote

I'm not sure that the costs that make it lower-cost reconcile with the same costs that would reduce the one we're discussing to a max 2 or 3000.

The point isn't really that it will change costs in one way or another right now. It's that it will set up a system that puts a downward market pressure on healthcare costs, instead of our current system, which drives costs spiraling upward by essentially incentivizing people to consume as much healthcare as they can (since they "pay" the same amount regardless of their use). The best way to control costs is to have the actual payment done by the party receiving the services/goods. The third party payment system is a disaster, from a cost containment perspective. The only things that have balanced it (to an extent) in single payer systems is the monopsony power of the single buyer, combined with rationing imposed by that buyer.

A first party payment system would push all the effects in the same direction (toward lower costs) in the long term. A single payer system has some effects pushing costs upward (third party payment, no cost sensitivity, built in incentives to overconsume) and some pushing downward (monopsony power, rationing).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rickjump1 0]

,




.

But how about protecting indigent people from insurance companies? They don't need protecting because they don't get to play. This is where the Republicans have shown their classist views; indigent people don't matter.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What would the category "fairness in financial contribution" be, then?

You could have researched that, but you have me for that.

http://boards.hbo.com/topic/Maher-Member-Created/Heathcare-Rankings-37th/1900013663

The weights on variables are 25% level of health, 25% distribution of health, 25% level and distribution of responsiveness, and 25% fairness of financial contribution.

And again, what does that have to do with how well a hospital or doctor does their job?

IT DOESN'T - that's the fucking point.

Quote

The US sucks in healthcare, real hard to argue that.

No, actually it doesn't - it sucks at fulfilling the socialized system that WHO is pushing.

Quote

Yes, the truth; what a set of criteria to base a study upon. Are you now saying the Global Peace Index is wrong? http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009

This has WHAT do to with the Health care bill, again? Nothing? Thought so.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

you feel there should be exceptions for liberals because only conservatives are racists.

Ding ding ding....we have a winner, folks!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dsandreas 0]

Luckyboy is a simpleton. No many how many times you explain that his analysis means nothing...that its based upon a faulty assumption (in this case meaningless liberal WHO data) he just repeats the same argument over and over. I will give it to him...he can use an incredible amount of space to say nothing.

Quote

Because they're basing on the same bullshit criteria WHO is?

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm afraid your little classy signature, "I'm a nappy-headed ho..." casts doubt upon your sincerity. Did it ever occur to you that some person of color might find this offensive?

Out of substantive things to talk about? Do you know the origin of that? Radio personality Don Imus said that about black girl basketball players, maybe it's a reminder of how ignorant people can be. Get back on topic.

Quote

If you are really interested in the plight of the poor, you would immediately remove it; unless of course, you feel there should be exceptions for liberals because only conservatives are racists.

And you're making the ill-assumption that all indigent people are balck, that's a racist statement.

Drop the ad hominems and get back to point, unless you're out of gas. Or next do we go to spelling issues, that's the normal transition.