Printable View
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Walley, please rent sicko and watch it.[/QUOTE]MB,
With all due respect, every Michael Moore movie I've seen was about as factually accurate as "Shrek", so why would I want to see another of his liberal propaganda pieces?
In fact, the only reason I might even consider watching it is because it was [u]YOU[/u] that suggested it, but I'd still have my reservations.
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Willyeye-
What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate. US hospitals are classified as such because they must provide treatment to all who come seeking it regardless of one's ability to pay. SOME hospitals do generate a profit and this money goes as bonuses to the top level directors and executives of the hospital or corporate entity. I worked in the accounting / billing department of a major US hospital owner / operator for a year back in 2000.
For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care (17% of GDP I believe) The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something. What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number?
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate.[/QUOTE]Me thinks you are party correct. 'Not for Profit' is a legal designation for certain types of organizations that are exempt from certain taxes. Where you seem to have missed the point is the this designation does provide magical pixie dust that will instantly turn losses into break even or better. If a hospital or any company loses money, it loses money. If it does it long enough, it will be bankrupt. It doesn't matter if the money is spent on taxes, gauze bandages or chicas. If revenue is less than expenses, you lose money.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care[/QUOTE]My statement of my well-founded opinion stands. I do not consider most of those items to be the single determinant of quality of care, nor do I believe that 'happiness' can be scientifically measured for apples:apples comparisons.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders](17% of GDP I believe) [/QUOTE]Under the proposed Obamacare plan, it will be much, much more than 17%. Do you think that will increase our standing in the global list of happy countries?
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something.[/QUOTE]It does. I thought you said you worked in accounting and billing? It says to me that I am saving $12k / year and having greater control over my health care expenditures.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number? [/QUOTE]I would chose a different plan.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]There is a difference between health insurance and a health plan. When we were kids, most people paid out of pocket for regular medical expenses and carried major medical insurance coverage for big, unexpected stuff. I think we should go back to those days. With free market solutions, there would be choices for those who wanted coverage for visits, etc and they would be appropriately priced. Today, everyone thinks that doctor visits should be $20 and drugs should be $5-15 dollars (health plan)[/QUOTE]A-FREAKING-MEN! (as in amen!)
I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crap, but I couldn't resist replying to this.
"However, there are only two classes of Brits, that I have come across, that like the nationalized health system 1) those that are healthy and don't need it and 2) those who profit financially from that behemoth. The secondary system to which you allude is called CASH. When you call for an appointment, the receptionist will ask if you are a Public or Private patient. If you say Private, come on in. If you say Public, we'll see you in a month."
I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.[/QUOTE]Absolutely spot on, Steve C.
[QUOTE=SteveC]I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crap[/QUOTE]My personal opinion. I am not looking to convert anyone to my perspective, time and the destruction of the US economy and way of life will be far more effective 'visual aids.'
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service.[/QUOTE]You are obviously much more likable and outgoing than I am (at least 10X so) You know lots of Brits. I qualified my statement to include Brit's that I have come across (I. E. That I know, which number around 100) The Public / private experiences includes my first hand experience and those of family and friends seeking immediate care for non-life-threatening, minor emergencies.
As for Michael Moore, on further reflection, we should all go back and watch Roger & Me and remind ourselves of what he as advocating then. I think that worked out pretty well for GM. We should all feel comfortable that this time, with Sicko, he might be right. Unless he is wrong, again.
Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.
But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.
There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.
So, what's the solution? I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction. Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure. But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair?
So, I don't know what the solution is. I do know that health insurance is not my biggest headache -- that would be worker's comp, which costs even more. The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.
Admittedly, that last point is debatable. But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. [/QUOTE]Thanks. I believe that it is a lack of understanding regarding the cost side of this issue that leaves most people scratching their heads. If lots of people pay nothing or less than the costs incurred treating them, the money has to come from somewhere.
You raise many excellent points.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, [/QUOTE]No, it isn't. Anyone, please cite me a situation where someone has been refused urgent medical care at a US hospital.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.[/QUOTE]The reason it is so expensive is that the average person is not paying for what they are getting. They are paying for what they are getting plus they are paying for those who do not pay.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.[/QUOTE]Correct you are, the issues will not be going away but your choice will be. The current House plan will eliminate your private plans and will make the cost of doing business for private insurers unbearable and they will leave the market. The only choices that will be left are the government plan and paying cash.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. [/QUOTE]Why not have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses?
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.[/QUOTE]
Unless your company is paying slave wages, these people are electing not to participate for one of two reasons: 1) they are covered by another plan (spouse, domestic partner, family pet, whatever) or 2) the chose to spend that money on something else which they deem to be more important than a health plan (flat screen tv, latin pussy, you name it) I do not know what plans your company offers but with the very generous contribution of 80% , there must be a plan that is affordable (I. E. Less than $1.5k per year in employee contribution for basic coverage)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]So, what's the solution? [/QUOTE]
Evolve to a more market driven system (improve what we currently have) that offers a variety from health plans to health insurance. Give people the option to have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses. People have to pay for what they consume. For those that cannot (not those that chose not to have coverage) get coverage due to hardship we already have a safety net (which is in need of improvement)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction. [/QUOTE]
I am inclined to agree with you here.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure.[/QUOTE]
Yes it will. Your company will ultimately stop offering health benefits so the field will be level with your competitors and your company will have one less attractive benefit with which to woo the best and brightest employees. Yes, this includes your personal benefits too.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair? [/QUOTE]
Fair? Who said anything about fair? Bend over.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.[/QUOTE]
Right you are. Why should we destroy the system that currently covers 84% of all Americans to address the 16% (most of whom chose to forgo coverage)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."[/QUOTE]
Whenever we, i. e. The United States, is acting as stooges for Chavez, Norega, Castro and the idiot despots from Boliva and Ecudaor I wonder what our fucking government, under the Rhodes Scholar wantabe Obama, is thinking.
We impeached Nixon because he violated our Constitution.
The Honduran government impeached their Hondorun president ie. Kicked the fucking despot out for violating the Hondoran Constitution.
What type of of pseudo intellectual imbecile do we have sitting in the White House of the United States (a clue for peope recovering from brain removals or hundreds of electro shock treatments. We have the second coming of that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter.
Another possiblity is that Obama is trying to wrangle blow jobs from Chavez and Castro. On the other hand, perhaps Obama is hoping to give Chavez and Castro blow jobs.
The Carmel One is going to make Jimmy (shit for brains / I only lusted in my heart) Carter look GOOD in retrospect!
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.[/QUOTE]How does the Dental care system work? I'm pretty sure after living in Wales that it is a very low percentage of GDP.
Not sure of % of gdp, but for my dental care I'm glad I live in Argentina. In the UK they tell me these days its expensive and difficult to get easy access. It was a lot better 10 years ago but I've had no recent experience so I'm not the best source on this.
[QUOTE=Sidney]And Bush as well![/QUOTE]Hey Sid,
Just out of courisity, what was the last US President that you actually liked?
Thanks,
Jackson