| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-Democrats |
| User: |
"Gogarty" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2008 10:12:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: California Gives Up On State Run Universal Health Care--Too Expensive |
In article
<c64e5d72-9218-41c8-bcb7-0f54a178d22b@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ciceroii@rogers.com says...
California, a rich state which has a bigger GDP and population than
Canada, has abandoned its planned Hillary-care medical scheme. This
state which has a very liberal legislature and a liberal-Republican
governor just could not find the money to give its citizen universal
health care.
Well, if the California Democrat government can't afford this for the
state, how can a Clinton-led Democrat federal government afford it for
an entire country of over 300 million people. The federal government
is already strapped. It has a $5 trillion national debt, a $500
billion annual deficit, and a $7 trillion looming social security
liability. Raising taxes on business and and wealthy will not cut it.
The US already has the second highest business taxes in the G8
industrialized countries. And Washington already spends hundred of
billions each year on medicade for seniors and emergency medical care
for the poor. Bush introduced another expensive entitlement with a
government paid drug plan for seniors.
Let's face it, Hillary Clinton's promises on universal health care are
just not financially feasible.
Democrat and liberal voters should understand that.
The plan, as do both the Clinton and Obama plans, depended on the
private insurance industry for implementation. So of course it was
doomed. No plan that depends on the private insurance industry can
succeed. So there is no real difference between the Clinton and Obama
plans. Neither can work. Only extension of Medicare with no input from
the private sector to the entire population will work.
My wife does medical billing and deals with all the insurance companies.
Most of her time is spent filing appeals when the companies decline to
pay claims. But worse is the shape of the insurance that so very many
people have. Deductibles of $3,000 and after that is met only 80%
payment of claims. That's insurance? These are poor people for the most
part whoi are basically having premium money stolen from them because
they don't go to the doctor in the first place, because of the
deductible, and only get medical attention aftert they finally get
really sick. The whole thing is a huge fraud.
.
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: California Gives Up On State Run Universal Health Care--Too Expensive |
04 Feb 2008 11:59:23 AM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20080204-161255.133.0@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
In article
<c64e5d72-9218-41c8-bcb7-0f54a178d22b@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ciceroii@rogers.com says...
California, a rich state which has a bigger GDP and population than
Canada, has abandoned its planned Hillary-care medical scheme. This
state which has a very liberal legislature and a liberal-Republican
governor just could not find the money to give its citizen universal
health care.
Well, if the California Democrat government can't afford this for the
state, how can a Clinton-led Democrat federal government afford it for
an entire country of over 300 million people. The federal government
is already strapped. It has a $5 trillion national debt, a $500
billion annual deficit, and a $7 trillion looming social security
liability. Raising taxes on business and and wealthy will not cut it.
The US already has the second highest business taxes in the G8
industrialized countries. And Washington already spends hundred of
billions each year on medicade for seniors and emergency medical care
for the poor. Bush introduced another expensive entitlement with a
government paid drug plan for seniors.
Let's face it, Hillary Clinton's promises on universal health care are
just not financially feasible.
Democrat and liberal voters should understand that.
The plan, as do both the Clinton and Obama plans, depended on the
private insurance industry for implementation. So of course it was
doomed. No plan that depends on the private insurance industry can
succeed. So there is no real difference between the Clinton and Obama
plans. Neither can work. Only extension of Medicare with no input from
the private sector to the entire population will work.
NO!!! No plan that removes the rationing decision from the user of the
service to some third party can work in the long run. The reason is simple.
When the user of the service is not the one paying for the service, they
have no incentive not to use the service. A person has no concern about the
cost of that service when they are not the ones paying for the service.
When you have that dynamic at work, you cannot possibly control prices
effectively. And prices is the real enemy. Because as the cost of that
service rises, you have to pay for that increase. And when the "payer" is
some third party, they have to raise the money to pay for that increase.
And like taxes, they do not like to ask people to pay more for the same
service they got yesterday.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: California Gives Up On State Run Universal Health Care--Too Expensive |
05 Feb 2008 02:54:47 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> used a stick in the sand
to babble
The plan, as do both the Clinton and Obama plans, depended on the
private insurance industry for implementation. So of course it was
doomed. No plan that depends on the private insurance industry can
succeed. So there is no real difference between the Clinton and Obama
plans. Neither can work. Only extension of Medicare with no input from
the private sector to the entire population will work.
NO!!! No plan that removes the rationing decision from the user of the
service to some third party can work in the long run.
But that's what we have now. People don't make most of their own
health care decisions, they do what their doctor tells them to.
The reason is simple.
When the user of the service is not the one paying for the service, they
have no incentive not to use the service. A person has no concern about the
cost of that service when they are not the ones paying for the service.
When you have that dynamic at work, you cannot possibly control prices
effectively. And prices is the real enemy. Because as the cost of that
service rises, you have to pay for that increase. And when the "payer" is
some third party, they have to raise the money to pay for that increase.
And like taxes, they do not like to ask people to pay more for the same
service they got yesterday.
That has an effect but isn't the main problem. If it was, nations
with national health programs would also be seeing such a cost spiral.
There are other, more significant reasons for health care regularly
outpacing inflation. Outsized malpractice awards granted by juries at
the drop of a hat. A lack of competition in the drug markets. A
profit driven system in which it's far to easy to order unnecessary
tests in order to increase the bill. Medical technology that lets
people live longer which means more people getting more treatment for
more disorders. Push the clock back even 75 years and both my parents
would be dead and out of the health care system. But due to modern
medical technology, both of them are still alive and consuming
thousands of dollars a month in health care products. Mom's is paid
by Medicare. Dad's is paid for by the employer he went to work for in
1951 and retired from in 1986 with his co pays and ineligible expenses
paid by Medicare or supplemental insurance.
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: California Gives Up On State Run Universal Health Care--Too Expensive |
05 Feb 2008 02:45:08 AM |
|
|
Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie> used a stick in the sand to babble
The plan, as do both the Clinton and Obama plans, depended on the
private insurance industry for implementation. So of course it was
doomed. No plan that depends on the private insurance industry can
succeed. So there is no real difference between the Clinton and Obama
plans. Neither can work. Only extension of Medicare with no input from
the private sector to the entire population will work.
My wife does medical billing and deals with all the insurance companies.
Most of her time is spent filing appeals when the companies decline to
pay claims. But worse is the shape of the insurance that so very many
people have. Deductibles of $3,000 and after that is met only 80%
payment of claims. That's insurance? These are poor people for the most
part whoi are basically having premium money stolen from them because
they don't go to the doctor in the first place, because of the
deductible, and only get medical attention aftert they finally get
really sick. The whole thing is a huge fraud.
This is why I supported SCHIP expansion. It gets kids in the HABIT of
health care. By the time they aren't covered by the program anymore,
they're so accustomed to going to the doctor that they'll buy their
own insurance. I strongly support a Medicare based system of regular
checkups and referrals. Such a system needs few doctors. Nurse
practitioners can do virtually all their work in such a setting. The
system can then refer the patient to their regular insurance system if
a more significant problem is discovered.
But let's not forget that one of the biggest issues is the epidemic of
diabetes and heart disease in this country caused by bad diet. These
are costing the system huge sums of money and the national health
systems in use in Europe, for example, are not bothered much with this
due primarily to a better diet there.
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California Gives Up On State Run Universal Health Care--Too Expensive |
05 Feb 2008 05:58:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:12:55 -0500, Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie>
wrote:
Let's face it, Hillary Clinton's promises on universal health care are
just not financially feasible.
Democrat and liberal voters should understand that.
The plan, as do both the Clinton and Obama plans, depended on the
private insurance industry for implementation. So of course it was
doomed. No plan that depends on the private insurance industry can
succeed.
Of course it can. It just depends on what you mean by "succeed". The
goal of KlintonKare (or any of its various incarnations) is to
transfer money from young, healthy people who don't really need or
want health insurance to pay for health insurance for those who do.
At its basis all insurance is a kind of "bet" between the insured and
the insurer that the former won't consume more health care than the
latter can afford. I pay you $400 a month for 30 years; you hope I
don't get sick enough to consume more than you collect from me (plus
the interest you earn on re-investing my money) during this timeframe.
If there are lots and lots of healthy, non-accident prone people in
the insured pool then the insurer wins the bet/doesn't go broke paying
out claims.
The problem comes when the cost of medical care rises faster than you
can raise premiums. Then you have to cut costs or inject more suckers
into the insured pool who won't get sick. Of the 48 -52 Million
people in the country who don't have insurance (estimates vary) only
about 8 million are net consumers of medical care, meaning the others
don't really need it. By "need" I mean actually USE the ER or other
expensive medical services that bankrupt a normal person. The others
may not have piece of mind but they also only get the occassional
sprains, bumps, contusions, and nagging coughs that clear up on their
own.
Naitonalized health care is just a clever way of getting these people
to pony up. It doesn't fix the underlying problem - rapidly rising
health care costs, it just puts off resolving this off a few more
years down the road. You can spend like a drunken sailor as long as
there are other drunks laying around whom you can rob, you see.
But wait! Doesn't national health care ALSO cap rising medical costs?
Don't the administrators set price caps, schedules, and allowances
that slow the rising cost of medical care? Not really. Saying a
surgeon can only charge, say, $5000 instead of $50,000 to fix a broken
heart sounds good, until you notice that 9 out of 10 cardiologists
quit the business rather than cut their prices that much. That's
where the waiting lists and surgical emergencies in places like the UK
and Canada come about: Doctors quit practicing medicine rather than
make less than their plumbers. "Well, we'll just MAKE them work,
then!" Entirely aside from the ethical ramifcations of forcing people
to work (it's called, "slavery"), do you really want an unhappy man
poking around inside you with a knife? Besides, the # of medical
students plummets dramatically and you wind up with less talented
people entering the profession, too. The Soviet Union tried this and
the quality of their medical care plummeted.
In any event if you can solve the problem of rising medical costs you
don't need to nationalize health care: Nationalizing health care does
NOTHING to solve the rising cost of medical care. It just puts off
doing something about it for a few years.
--
"The enormously expensive Kyoto recommendations would
save 0.06 polar bears per year at most. But 49 bears
from the same population are getting shot every year,
and this we can easily do something about."
- Bjorn Lomborg
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
