Ezra Klein: The Truth About Single-Payer Health Care

The only approach that has ever worked to reduce health care costs
Health • Views: 31,515

Ezra Klein has some very interesting statistics about health care, showing that in every country where it’s operational, single payer health care is simply working.

Everyone knows — or should know — that the United States spends much more than any other country on health care. But the Kaiser Family Foundation broke that spending down into two parts, the government’s share and the private sector’s share (both measured as a percentage of total gross domestic product), then compared the results with figures from 12 other countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And here’s the shocker: Our government spends more on health care than the governments of Japan, Australia, Norway, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Canada or Switzerland.

Think about that for a minute. Canada has a single-payer health-care system. The government is the only insurer of any note. The United Kingdom has a socialized system, in which the government is not only the sole insurer of note but also employs most of the doctors and nurses and runs most of the hospitals. And yet, measured as a share of the economy, our government health-care system is the largest of the bunch.

And it’s worse than that: Atop our giant government health-care sector, we have an even more giant private health-care sector. Altogether, we’re spending about 16 percent of the GDP on health care. No other country even tops 12 percent. Which means we’ve got the worst of both worlds: huge government and high costs.

This is where a “serious conversation” on health-care costs would start — with what has worked, and what we can learn from it. Instead, it’s where our conversation about health-care costs never quite goes.

Jump to bottom

383 comments
1 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:17:13pm

in before "Healthcare Rationing!"

(I trust nobody will actually try to pull 'death panels!' on here)

2 Jeff In Ohio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:18:34pm

ANTHONY WIENERS PENIS!!!!

3 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:18:45pm

Which is why we're "EXCEPTIONAL"!!!
/

4 celticdragon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:19:07pm

It won't make the slightest difference that it works. The opposition is based on hatred of other people getting help with your tax money.

5 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:20:41pm

re: #4 celticdragon

I'd say the opposition is actually mostly about pundits and congresspeople being in the pocket of the insurance companies.

The other is more a smokescreen :D

6 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:22:04pm

but these are facts!

what use are they for counteracting magic spells like "that's socialized medicine"?

7 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:22:17pm

Oh Charles, I think there are quite a few lizards here who don't want to hear this.

8 abolitionist  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:27:00pm

re: #4 celticdragon

It won't make the slightest difference that it works. The opposition is based on hatred of other people getting help with your tax money.

Strange that we aren't so vehemently opposed to public highways and public education.

9 William of Orange  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:27:12pm

Can I say how refreshing it is that someone is actually reporting on a issue that matters? A bit surprised that we're (Netherlands) is not in the top 10.

10 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:27:36pm

So what if we piss away an extra 5% of GDP. So long as the wealthy of Canada come here for their health care, those extra billions are well worth it.

Or something like that.

11 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:32:26pm

The amount we spend on drugs vs. Canada and other places is especially galling.

12 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:32:43pm

I have a proposistion.
Let us build a small town somewhere in the US.
Let us call it "Rapture" "Libertarian Paradise".
A place where all those who dream of true free market capitalism and no Gov interference can live.
See how it works out.

13 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:35:50pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

I have a proposistion.
Let us build a small town somewhere in the US.
Let us call it "Rapture" "Libertarian Paradise".
A place where all those who dream of true free market capitalism and no Gov interference can live.
See how it works out.

What, Galt's Gulch isn't good enough for you?

14 Targetpractice  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:36:21pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

I have a proposistion.
Let us build a small town somewhere in the US.
Let us call it "Rapture" "Libertarian Paradise".
A place where all those who dream of true free market capitalism and no Gov interference can live.
See how it works out.

I'd like to propose a small alteration, Varek: Any wishing to take part in this proposal must sign a waver forfeiting all "entitlements" that they receive via the federal government, including Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security.

15 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:36:23pm

re: #13 JasonA

What, Galt's Gulch isn't good enough for you?

Is it underwater???
Or in the sky???
Didn't think so.

16 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:36:31pm

re: #9 William of Orange

Can I say how refreshing it is that someone is actually reporting on a issue that matters? A bit surprised that we're (Netherlands) is not in the top 10.

I highly recommend you read Ezra regularly. He focuses solely on domestic wonky policy issues. He's very good.

17 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:37:32pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

I have a proposistion.
Let us build a small town somewhere in the US.
Let us call it "Rapture" "Libertarian Paradise".
A place where all those who dream of true free market capitalism and no Gov interference can live.
See how it works out.

There are countries like that in Africa (Somalia) and Asia (Afghanistan). I seem to recall US military interventions* in both of them...

The US involvement in the latter was part of a UN thing IIRC. So not quite the same thing.

18 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:37:54pm

I'd also note that people in favor of free-market health insurance prefer to cite Canada above other nations when talking about wait times, because Canada does, indeed, have a problem with wait times. However, there are many single-payer systems where the wait time to see a non-specialist doctor is actually much faster than in the US.

19 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:38:53pm

Nice article. I've had a sign in my cube for the last five years that says simply:

Single Payer Now!

If our national priority was on the citizens rather than enriching pharmaceutical and insurance companies we'd have had this a long time ago.

20 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:39:40pm

re: #19 Locker

Nice article. I've had a sign in my cube for the last five years that says simply:

Single Payer Now!

If our national priority was on the citizens rather than enriching pharmaceutical and insurance companies we'd have had this a long time ago.

Leave Aetna alone!

21 BishopX  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:39:52pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

It's called new Hampshire.

22 BongGhazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:39:56pm

I posted a news item the other day from the Boston Globe that indicated that "Romneycare" had something like a 63% approval rate, up 10 percentage points since it was enacted in 2006.

It's insane that Romney has to run against his own success story in order to placate the knuckledraggers.

(It should be noted that in the comments to that news story the knuckledraggers were out in full force: almost all the comments were negative, and there was more than one comment that read (paraphrasing here) "Well, maybe if they'd poll people with jobs they'd find out it's not so popular.")

23 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:40:19pm

There's really only two ways to do it, and both are really options of "Single Payer."

Option 1: Single Payer. Government covers everything.

Option 2: Government runs a single payer "high risk" pool. Find the amount where 95% of people between the ages of 21 and 65 wouldn't exceed and make that the deductible. So basically you'd be on the hook for the first $5000/year or so, and the government insurance would kick in after that. Private insurance companies or pre-paid health plans can offer plans for the 0-5000 range, or you can just pay it.

I prefer option #2 in theory because I think it will enable competition to keep costs down. You'd be able to get a $99 mammogram at Wal*Mart. But since I don't trust the Government to do #2 right, I'd pick #1.

For an example on how I don't trust the Government to do #2 right, I'm concerned politicians would put so many restrictions on the type of private policies a person could get for the gap, that it would just make a big mess.

Take this piece-of-work from the NY State Assembly. A family-values Republican. Rallied against same-sex marriage laws in NY State, and spoke out against Obama and Ombama Care (and before Obama's compromise). But he doesn't hesitate to force private insurance companies to cover additional things:

[Link: www.nysenate.gov...]

I'm not trying to judge whether there shouldn't be public funding for children with Autism. It's probably a good idea. But I'm amused at how these Republicans try to fund it....while at the same time being against a Single-Payer health care system.

I, for one, would love to be able to get $10,000/year minimum deductible health insurance. The premium should be very low, and I'd be willing to take the risk. But it's simply not available in California. Why? Because there are so many "must cover" provisions that insurance companies simply can't offer it.

To me, to avoid this mess, single payer, "government pays everything" is the only thing that can possibly work. (Even then there are issues with being forced to cover "alternative" medicine, Chiropractic, etc, that I'm not sure the Government should pay for.)

24 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:40:19pm

There is an extraordinarily strong resistance in this country at doing collectively what seems to be best for the whole.

I use the word "collectively" intentionally, for the "collective" as a term is certain to press red buttons on those who want to believe that health care reform is all some sort of communist plot.

We do many things in our lives collectively. More so in cities than somewhere in, say, the tundra, but everywhere you go you will find humans working together as groups, for the benefit of the group. It predates communism, but a long time.

I've made the case, first to myself and now attempting to in discussions with others, that the welfare of others is important to my own welfare.

When I'm at the store, does it matter to me if the family ahead of me in line is coughing from Whooping Cough? When I'm walking down the street late at night should I be concerned that some deranged individual will be thrashing around on the street suffering from dark psychoses? Should it matter to me whether the baby born today, who could be the person who changes my own diapers when I'm 95 and laying in a bed somewhere, is given a good chance at growing up healthily?

The attraction of "the rugged individual" is one of those religious/mythical dreams to which our society has attached itself. I think it will be very difficult to overcome anytime soon.

25 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:41:08pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The amount we spend on drugs vs. Canada and other places is especially galling.

I was discussing my conversion from "fiscal conservatism" with a republican neighbor recently. He claimed that healthcare reform would inhibit innovation from the drug companies, He's had a kidney transplant and feared that his medications wouldn't even exist without the current American healthcare system. I googled the medications he mentioned. Two were invented in Japan, the other in France.

26 BongGhazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:41:32pm

re: #15 Varek Raith

Is it underwater???
Or in the sky???
Didn't think so.


Oh, it's definitely in the sky.

Pie-in-the-sky.

27 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:42:11pm

The only respectable thing I've seen a Republican do about health care was to propose a measure that would allow veterans to use local medical offices instead of having to go to VA clinics. (I believe the measure went nowhere, or I'd have heard about it.)

I have a friend who has to go 250 miles for an eye exam. There's a van that leaves town at 1:30 AM to take veterans to their various appointments for that day. My friend insists on making it a two week bicycle excursion. Good thing he doesn't need to see an orthopedic surgeon or something.

28 Funky_Gibbon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:42:19pm

Oddly enough though countries like the UK, now dominated by a right-wing government, are hard at work planning to make their country's healthcare system more like the US and they're using the argument that they have to do so to make it more cost effective, even though it's already substantially more cost effective according to recent studies and delivers better health outcomes on a lot of things.

Basically as celticdragon said, opposition is based around a desired not to have to pay taxes towards it and the idea of how much money they can make out of the system if they can take parts away from public service.

29 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:43:19pm

re: #18 Obdicut

I'd also note that people in favor of free-market health insurance prefer to cite Canada above other nations when talking about wait times, because Canada does, indeed, have a problem with wait times. However, there are many single-payer systems where the wait time to see a non-specialist doctor is actually much faster than in the US.

I know YMMV, but I can't see how much "faster" one can get than my two most recent experiences with two different doctors

I've had some discomfort to stabbing intermittent pain behind my shoulder blade for about a week. It finally got to the point where I had to call my general practitioner. Spoke with the office last Thursday late afternoon and they could have taken me 1st thing friday morning. Due to work conflict I couldn't take that appt, but they did take me at 11:15 Monday morning

My wife has been battling congestion for a week or so. She called her GP yesterday morning and they got her in this morning

30 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:43:24pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

I have a proposistion.
Let us build a small town somewhere in the US.
Let us call it "Rapture" "Libertarian Paradise".
A place where all those who dream of true free market capitalism and no Gov interference can live.
See how it works out.

Sounds like the Google Opt-Out Village:

31 Funky_Gibbon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:43:38pm

re: #18 Obdicut

However, there are many single-payer systems where the wait time to see a non-specialist doctor is actually much faster than in the US.

What is the wait-time?

32 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:43:55pm

Screw what works in the rest of the developed world, American Exceptionalism

hurr a durr

33 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:44:09pm

re: #25 Killgore Trout

Yep. I don't know who started the meme that all pharma research is in the US but it's never been true. Partially because pharma research is based largely in basic science research-- which is funded by governments, and done at state schools.

A lot of the pharma advances in the US can be traced back to work at UCLA, UCSF, and other state schools-- in other words, government funded.

34 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:44:11pm

re: #23 reuven

You'd be able to get a $99 mammogram at Wal*Mart.

Oh, yeah. That has a lot of appeal.

35 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:44:22pm

I should add that single-payer will help small business immensely, and will empower people to leave their jobs and start business or take chances with fledgling companies. I can't imagine why there's not widespread bi-partisan support for it.

36 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:44:29pm

re: #29 sattv4u2

I know YMMV, but I can't see how much "faster" one can get than my two most recent experiences with two different doctors

Anecdotes aren't data.

37 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:44:54pm

re: #25 Killgore Trout

I got three perscriptions yesterday.

Total out of pocket was $3.08

38 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:45:13pm

re: #34 wrenchwench

Well, since I'm not a woman (though men do get breast cancer), what do I care!?

39 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:45:48pm

re: #36 Obdicut

Anecdotes aren't data.

I understand that, but you stated "faster" Don't know how much "faster" it could be.

40 Kragar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:47:56pm

re: #34 wrenchwench

Oh, yeah. That has a lot of appeal.

Just make sure you bring a towel to wipe the machine down from the previous customer. What could go wrong?

41 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:48:11pm

re: #39 sattv4u2

I understand that, but you stated "faster" Don't know how much "faster" it could be.

You're right. It cannot get much faster for you, blessed one.

42 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:48:18pm

re: #38 reuven

Well, since I'm not a woman (though men do get breast cancer), what do I care!?

This would not be the first time I have seen that attitude from you.

43 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:48:50pm

I don't understand the complaint about wait times. The only reason single payer would increase wait times would be because everyone would have access to a doctor. So if you want to decrease wait times you have to keep a certain percentage of people from seeing doctors.

44 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:48:51pm

re: #18 Obdicut

I'd also note that people in favor of free-market health insurance prefer to cite Canada above other nations when talking about wait times, because Canada does, indeed, have a problem with wait times. However, there are many single-payer systems where the wait time to see a non-specialist doctor is actually much faster than in the US.

You got that right. Try talking to anyone in California who uses Kaiser Permanente and they'll give you the low down. They'll prescribe drugs in a heartbeat, even over the phone, but if you need ANY type of treatment which isn't provided by your general practitioner you are going to be waiting.

Took 11 weeks to see a dermatologist regarding a mole on my arm as an example.

45 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:48:53pm

re: #42 wrenchwench

This would not be the first time I have seen that attitude from you.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

46 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:49:40pm

re: #38 reuven

Well, since I'm not a woman (though men do get breast cancer), what do I care!?

I'm assuming this is missing a sarc tag.

47 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:49:41pm

re: #45 JasonA

I was on the verge of writing $59 Prostate Exam instead. I should have went with it.

48 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:49:57pm

re: #39 sattv4u2

I understand that, but you stated "faster" Don't know how much "faster" it could be.

Your experience is not typical.

49 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:49:58pm

ahh, another reason i despise the GOP pigs!

50 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:50:43pm

re: #47 reuven

I was on the verge of writing $59 Prostate Exam instead. I should have went with it.

I only get worried when they offer to pay me...

51 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:51:08pm

re: #46 Locker

I'm assuming this is missing a sarc tag.

>

Witholding the ding, up or down, until clarified

52 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:51:13pm

re: #37 sattv4u2

I got three perscriptions yesterday.

Total out of pocket was $3.08

I paid almost $450 earlier this week for an insurance plan that used to cost $210 per month about 6 years ago. I didn't get anything.

53 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:51:24pm

re: #29 sattv4u2

how much money do you make, how good is your insurance

In my experience, people who are making tons of money have better insurance and better experiences

us wastrels who don't have the benefit of rich privileged insurance, not so much

54 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:51:44pm

re: #51 sattv4u2

Oh good L-rd! Does every bit of sarcasm need a sarc tag?
/

55 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:51:49pm

re: #45 JasonA

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

No, really. I think he feels that way. I don't have a problem with it -- he's open and honest about it. I worry about the ones who try to hide it.

56 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:52:02pm

re: #54 reuven

Oh good L-rd! Does every bit of sarcasm need a sarc tag?
/

Yes you twit!

57 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:52:27pm

re: #47 reuven

I was on the verge of writing $59 Prostate Exam instead. I should have went with it.

They'll probably run a great combo special: get both procedures and get 25% off!

58 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:52:29pm

re: #37 sattv4u2

I got three perscriptions yesterday.

Total out of pocket was $3.08

I take it you aren't self employed

ladies and gentlemen, your haughty moneyed entitled republican example, displayed for all to see

59 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:52:49pm

re: #54 reuven

Oh good L-rd! Does every bit of sarcasm need a sarc tag?
/

By the reactions you got, yours obviously should

60 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:53:14pm

re: #57 garhighway

They'll probably run a great combo special: get both procedures and get 25% off!

That's a winner!

61 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:53:31pm

re: #55 wrenchwench

No, really. I think he feels that way. I don't have a problem with it -- he's open and honest about it. I worry about the ones who try to hide it.

I dunno. I think his biggest crime here is being bad at sarcasm. The guy was pretty obviously advocating for single-payer, so I really don't think that comment represented his true opinion.

62 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:53:34pm

Speaking of prescriptions and the inability for our largest public medical services to negotiate for bulk drug prices. Does anyone have a plausible explanation for this other than a stimulus for the drug companies?

63 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:53:46pm

basically, don't ask a rich guy his opinion on the groundlings


MAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS, I GOT MINE

64 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:53:49pm

re: #58 WindUpBird

I take it you aren't self employed

ladies and gentlemen, your haughty moneyed entitled republican example, displayed for all to see

heh,, I was "self employed" AND carried a goodly amount of my employees insurance for decades, so please, no "haughty" lectures

65 Kragar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:54:00pm

re: #56 Varek Raith

Yes you twit!

NEVUH!

66 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:54:16pm

re: #35 reuven

I should add that single-payer will help small business immensely, and will empower people to leave their jobs and start business or take chances with fledgling companies. I can't imagine why there's not widespread bi-partisan support for it.

This I heartily agree with.

67 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:54:17pm

re: #41 JasonA

You're right. It cannot get much faster for you, blessedmoneyed one.

68 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:54:56pm

re: #54 reuven

Oh good L-rd! Does every bit of sarcasm need a sarc tag?
/

It does until people know you a whole lot better.

69 reidr  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:55:13pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

Heh. I just started playing Bioshock 2 a few days ago. (Never played 1.)

70 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:55:33pm

re: #64 sattv4u2

heh,, I was "self employed" AND carried a goodly amount of my employees insurance for decades, so please, no "haughty" lectures

And if we had single payer you wouldn't have had to carry a goodly amount of your employees insurance.

71 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:55:34pm

re: #61 JasonA

I dunno. I think his biggest crime here is being bad at sarcasm. The guy was pretty obviously advocating for single-payer, so I really don't think that comment represented his true opinion.

Don't make me go digging....

72 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:55:43pm

re: #69 reidr

Heh. I just started playing Bioshock 2 a few days ago. (Never played 1.)

STOP! YOU MUST PLAY 1! YOU"RE DOING IT AL WRONG!!!

73 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:55:48pm

re: #68 Locker

It does until people know you a whole lot better.

What planets are aligned that have you and I agreeing !?!?!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

74 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:56:34pm

re: #70 recusancy

And if we had single payer you wouldn't have had to carry a goodly amount of your employees insurance.

Really? And where do you think this "single payer" will be getting the money from?

75 ReamWorks SKG  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:56:38pm

re: #57 garhighway

Men *do* get breast cancer

[Link: www.cancer.org...]

There have been a number of incidents where men have been denied access to breast cancer screenings and clinics that have resulted in lawsuits. I'm trying to find a reference to some litigation, in the meantime there's this story:

[Link: articles.nydailynews.com...]

76 KingKenrod  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:56:44pm
And here’s the shocker: Our government spends more on health care than the governments of Japan, Australia, Norway, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Canada or Switzerland.

I don't see what's shocking about that - we have single payer for everyone over 65 (which accounts for 20% of all health care spending), Medicaid (15%), and our large standing armies guarantee many millions more are entitled to lifetime subsidized care.

77 Bob Dillon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:56:48pm

re: #4 celticdragon

It won't make the slightest difference that it works. The opposition is based on hatred of other people getting help with your tax money.

For me the thot of how the postal system has gone from an efficient well run machine to a bloated, bankrupt, corrupt entity, is what gives me the chills. The TSA is a more recent and faster evolving example. Others abound.

78 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:56:50pm

re: #69 reidr

Heh. I just started playing Bioshock 2 a few days ago. (Never played 1.)

If you like 2, 1 is basically identical with a different plot line. I loved the New Rapture underwater city and Andrew Ryan was a great "Atlas".

79 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:57:09pm

Waiting times for tests, surgery and other services in Canada arevwell documented- and their population is ten percent of our own.

Further, the Canadian Supreme Court actually eliminated the single payer system in Canada, allowing for patients to choose government or private health services.

Food for thought

80 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:57:11pm

re: #35 reuven

I should add that single-payer will help small business immensely, and will empower people to leave their jobs and start business or take chances with fledgling companies. I can't imagine why there's not widespread bi-partisan support for it.

I left my job and started my own business anyway, I'm young enough that I'm taking the risk, thankfully I don't have any perscriptions


And the reason there isn't bipartisan support is...

A) the GOP's interest is in keeping people tethered to their jobs and scared, keeps wages down, keeps people afraid

B) both parties are owned in part by health insurance. Thanks Joe Lieberman, you fossilized dogturd! Thanks Aetna!

Pigs got this shit sealed up tight, don't even worry about it

81 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:57:34pm

re: #69 reidr

Heh. I just started playing Bioshock 2 a few days ago. (Never played 1.)

GOD, START WITH 1!

actually, start with System Shock 2

82 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:58:08pm

re: #79 researchok

Again:


I'd also note that people in favor of free-market health insurance prefer to cite Canada above other nations when talking about wait times, because Canada does, indeed, have a problem with wait times. However, there are many single-payer systems where the wait time to see a non-specialist doctor is actually much faster than in the US.
83 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:58:40pm

re: #73 sattv4u2

What planets are aligned that have you and I agreeing !?!?!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Don't tell them that we actually agree on a lot of things and just fight for fun, sport and public amusement.

84 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:58:41pm

re: #25 Killgore Trout

I was discussing my conversion from "fiscal conservatism" with a republican neighbor recently. He claimed that healthcare reform would inhibit innovation from the drug companies, He's had a kidney transplant and feared that his medications wouldn't even exist without the current American healthcare system. I googled the medications he mentioned. Two were invented in Japan, the other in France.

I don't see any system that could be more fiscally conservative than single payer. 98.6% of the money paid goes directly toward health care with only 1.04% administrative. 0% for profit/shareholders. Quantity of scale means cost control all around to slow the outa control price increases of the medical industry. This is one monopoly that serves everyone... except those getting rich off of denying medical care and gouging on drugs.

85 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:58:59pm

re: #64 sattv4u2

heh,, I was "self employed" AND carried a goodly amount of my employees insurance for decades, so please, no "haughty" lectures

lol sorry, mister moneybags, some of us don't have your cash on hand

86 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:59:14pm

re: #82 Obdicut

Again:

Where? And what is the population base?

87 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:59:31pm

WHY I COULD AFFORD MY OWN INSURANCE IN THE 70'S IT'S TOTALLY THE SAME NOW


oh Republican pigs, so predictable

88 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:59:40pm

re: #71 wrenchwench

Don't make me go digging...

This is me dropping it.

89 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:59:44pm

re: #47 reuven

Actually, your Wal-Mart quip wasn't that far off the mark. From a Feb 7 2008 press release.

With data showing that 55 percent of its in-store clinic patients are uninsured, Wal-Mart is committed to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of our health care system by working with operators who provide a specific set of services to adults and children over age two, including:

Treatment of common ailments such as sore throats, sinus infections, earaches, and bladder infections.

Preventive care, including health screenings, medical tests, vaccinations, and basic physical exams.

Standard electronic medical records for clinic patients that eliminate the need for paper records via an electronic records platform employed by all new clinics operating in Wal-Mart stores
.
Patient care delivered by licensed, certified providers who diagnose, treat, and when appropriate, prescribe medications.

90 Kragar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 1:59:46pm

re: #72 JasonA

STOP! YOU MUST PLAY 1! YOU"RE DOING IT AL WRONG!!!

You're doing it wrong, try this:

Would you kindly play Bioshock 1?

91 KingKenrod  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:16pm

re: #62 Locker

Speaking of prescriptions and the inability for our largest public medical services to negotiate for bulk drug prices. Does anyone have a plausible explanation for this other than a stimulus for the drug companies?

Big Pharma wouldn't support HCR without it, and Obama couldn't afford to have them as an enemy. Eventually they'll get stabbed in the back and no one will shed a tear.

92 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:19pm

re: #81 WindUpBird

GOD, START WITH 1!

actually, start with System Shock 2

Why not start with System Shock 1? Great, fantastic games. In fact I'd say the System Shock series is better than the BioShock series as it's not ridiculously easy, like SS.

93 justaminute  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:22pm

If we had single payer why would we need a VA? We would no long need Tri Care for the military unless they are stationed in other countries. We would not need Medicare. We would only need Medicaid to help seniors with nursing home costs. We could also have various form of insurance, say insurance for your family if your ill and can't work. We have that now.

94 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:25pm

re: #74 sattv4u2

Really? And where do you think this "single payer" will be getting the money from?

You would pay premiums to the government and not a private insurer. The same way we pay premiums for social security and medicare and medicade.

95 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:33pm

re: #85 WindUpBird

lol sorry, mister moneybags, some of us don't have your cash on hand

Yeah,, because when I was 27 and had 15 employees I was just awash in cash,,, lit my Cuban cigars with $100 bills ,,, left the engine of all my classic cars running 24/7 just because I could afford the gas,,,,

96 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:39pm

health care is the first reason I'll never vote for a republican for national office again

gay rights is actually number 2

97 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:00:46pm

re: #74 sattv4u2

Really? And where do you think this "single payer" will be getting the money from?

And therein is another frustrating part of the debate: there is a presumption that as a "govt program" a single payer system must inevitably be a bloated, inefficient mess. Our experience with Medicare and SS would indicate otherwise: they both run very efficiently compared to their private counterparts. One part of Health Care Reform was a requirement that the private insurers raise the percentage of their revenues they spend on health care (OMG!) and they are now jumping through all kinds of hoops to define pretty much everything they do as "health care", including marketing and the like.

Logically, single payer should be cheaper.

98 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:01:12pm

re: #79 researchok

Waiting times for tests, surgery and other services in Canada arevwell documented- and their population is ten percent of our own.

Further, the Canadian Supreme Court actually eliminated the single payer system in Canada, allowing for patients to choose government or private health services.

Food for thought

5% of GDP.

Food for thought.

99 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:01:20pm

re: #92 Locker

Why not start with System Shock 1? Great, fantastic games. In fact I'd say the System Shock series is better than the BioShock series as it's not ridiculously easy, like SS.

well, Shock 1 doesn't have mouselook, and is really hard to get running on a modern system

go back and play shock 1, the lack of mouselook is a bitch *_*

100 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:01:45pm

re: #97 garhighway

ahh GOP propaganda is fun, isn't it?

101 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:02:01pm

re: #94 recusancy

You would pay premiums to the government and not a private insurer. The same way we pay premiums for social security and medicare and medicade.

Great ,, three financially stable examples! Thanks

102 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:02:57pm

re: #99 WindUpBird

well, Shock 1 doesn't have mouselook, and is really hard to get running on a modern system

go back and play shock 1, the lack of mouselook is a bitch *_*

Sounds like my failed attempts to get Max Payne (first one) working on Windows 7. I hacked and got the old Thief and Hitman games but no love for Max.

103 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:02:58pm

re: #98 garhighway

5% of GDP.

Food for thought.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

104 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:03:20pm

re: #101 sattv4u2

Great ,, three financially stable examples! Thanks

Do you disagree that a single payer system would be better at reining in costs than our current lack of a system?

105 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:03:39pm

OT, but I think important (and I'll try to connect it to the topic at the end...):

Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought

Stone fragments found in Georgia suggest Homo erectus might have evolved outside Africa. [...]

I suspect the hominins may not fit neatly into a sequence straight into the H. erectus phenotype, but nevertheless this is a non-trivial find.

Anyway, the resistance to the idea of human ancestry is deep, especially in this country among the so called "West".

Does this correlate to American's resistance to socialized (government) institutions merely by chance, or is there a causal connection?

In following up to the Adam and Eve genetics issue article in Christianity Today I've been looking at how the various religious blogs are dealing with that publication, once thought of as the leading Evangelical publication in the country (or even world). The answers may seem obvious but there are some hidden issues that surface, too.

At one blog, on a sermon about this subject from a preacher who is sympathetic to the idea that Christians should not ignore science and whose sermon could be summarized as can't-we-all-just-get-along?, I wrote the following:

[...]

One thing that leaps out at me is how the subject that drove the BioLogos position – Genetics – is not discussed at all [in] so many of the blog/news articles and forums that are covering this story.

So far here, in the original sermon and the subsequent comments, there has been no mention of Genetics.

Do people here understand the issue which modern genetics is laying before the Christian community?

The answers so far that I have received you would likely classify as typical.

The point I'm trying to make to that crowd is that they are refusing to engage in the actual subject (genetics) and data.

This avoidance of facts, data, observations, tests, etc. is one of the common links to the social/political topics we cover, such as healthcare.

When the people we confront refuse to engage the manifest data at hand, what should we do? Give up?

106 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:03:40pm

Hmm. I feel like getting back to working my way through Dead Space. No game has ever satisfied me more with my own death.

107 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:03:44pm

re: #95 sattv4u2

hahaha employees


hahaha yes

employees


cry for the rich guy, won't you all?

108 Bob Dillon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:03:49pm

re: #76 KingKenrod

I don't see what's shocking about that - we have single payer for everyone over 65 (which accounts for 20% of all health care spending), Medicaid (15%), and our large standing armies guarantee many millions more are entitled to lifetime subsidized care.

As a vet and over 65 with forced Medicare: The VA is the last place any vet with means and choice would go for anything serious. There are profound exceptions for some active duty but VA horror stories are too many to instill overall confidence. Medicare limits my options unless I opt out and pay my own way. We give up choice. I do not care for how either are structured and operate.

109 justaminute  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:04:12pm

re: #74 sattv4u2

Really? And where do you think this "single payer" will be getting the money from?

Canada charges a sales tax for their health insurance. So everyone pays.

110 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:04:21pm

re: #104 garhighway

Do you disagree that a single payer system would be better at reining in costs than our current lack of a system?

the sound of someone who cares so much for his employees, lol gimme a fucking break

111 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:05:10pm

re: #108 Bobibutu

and for those of us who don't even have that?

Got some more propaganda for us?

112 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:05:59pm

Personally I think providing robust and wide reaching health care (education, police, fire, etc) is much more important than makes these programs run at max level efficiency for the cheapest cost.

There are lots of places we don't skimp in our personal lives and I'd rather spend extra money to have an outstanding system than penny pinch on something as important ans health, safety and education.

113 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:06:09pm

re: #86 researchok

Where? And what is the population base?

Taiwan, France, Germany, Sweden.


Please explain why population base is a valid point of objection.

114 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:06:21pm

man, where's someone to talk about tossing women in jail for abortions, that'd just be the Republican capper

115 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:07:30pm

re: #104 garhighway

Do you disagree that a single payer system would be better at reining in costs than our current lack of a system?

No idea, but I sure would like to see an attempt to "reign in costs" in the current system

Fraud,, waste,,, uneeded regulations,,(and no, I'm not saying NO regulations, I'm talking about someone in lets say New York not being able to buy ins from a New Jersey company, or a Massachusetts having state mandated rate structures instead of competitive ones

116 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:07:37pm

Because delivering services to a small population is very different than delivering services to larger populations.

Scale applies to health care as well as every other endeavor.

117 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:07:42pm

re: #98 garhighway

5% of GDP.

Food for thought.

No, no, right-wing governments dismantling the successful healthcare systems in other countries is totally a reason for us to continue flushing money down the crapper.

118 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:07:44pm

IT IS SUCH A FREAKING GORGEOUS DAY OUTSIDE!!!
I'M WONDERING WHY I'M STILL AT WOR........

...*cricket*

119 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:08:02pm

re: #114 WindUpBird

man, where's someone to talk about tossing women in jail for abortions, that'd just be the Republican capper

Not jailed, but charged...

Your text to link...

120 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:08:18pm

re: #113 Obdicut

Because delivering services to a small population is very different than delivering services to larger populations.

Scale applies to health care as well as every other endeavor.

121 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:08:32pm

Sorry...

[Link: www.care2.com...]

122 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:08:44pm

guys won't you cry for the guy with 15 employees who only pays 3 bucks for his perscriptions?


I mean, I'm shedding tears now

123 Bob Dillon  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:09:21pm

re: #111 WindUpBird

and for those of us who don't even have that?

Got some more propaganda for us?

Direct experience.

124 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:10:14pm

re: #122 WindUpBird

guys won't you cry for the guy with 15 employees who only pays 3 bucks for his perscriptions?

I mean, I'm shedding tears now

I'm sorry, but did someone tell you you HAD to be a free lance/ self employed artist?

125 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:10:14pm

re: #116 researchok

Because delivering services to a small population is very different than delivering services to larger populations.

How so? Especially since the service we're talking about is health insurance.

Are you saying that we should have single-payer each run by individual states? The 'the scale is wrong' objection is odd to me because, if it were true, we could just subdivide the US and go from there. I'm not sure why it's seen as a valid argument.

126 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:10:55pm

Watching Americans argue about health care is like watching old honey mooners reruns.

127 reidr  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:10:58pm

re: #72 JasonA

STOP! YOU MUST PLAY 1! YOU"RE DOING IT AL WRONG!!!

Um, oops? Sorry, I wasn't aware of that! I think I actually did play the demo for 1 and it just didn't "click" enough to buy.

128 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:11:11pm

re: #115 sattv4u2

No idea, but I sure would like to see an attempt to "reign in costs" in the current system

Fraud,, waste,,, uneeded regulations,,(and no, I'm not saying NO regulations, I'm talking about someone in lets say New York not being able to buy ins from a New Jersey company, or a Massachusetts having state mandated rate structures instead of competitive ones

You take away the state lines restrictions, and all the insurance companies will move to the state with the least patient-friendly regulations. Since states will compete to have bad regulations in order to attract those companies and their white collar employees, this will be a rapid race to the bottom.

Face it, the US system is crappy (as evidenced by the GDP % spend, real dollar amount spend, and shit outcomes we get for it).

129 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:11:13pm

I'll note that I was not very impressed by the health care bill that was finally passed by the last Congress. It is a monstrous heap of specialized legislation that is the result of not clearly articulating, and selling, the bigger issue.

130 dragonfire1981  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:11:29pm

Having experience with both systems I prefer the Canadian. It's not perfect but when I needed emergency care while in college I was able to get it without breaking the bank. My hard of hearing mother can get a $20 000 cochlear implant surgery without having to pay a penny. There are issues of course but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Having seen doctors on both sides of the border I have found the Canadian doctors to be better in general. The last US doctor I saw asked me a few questions and barely performed an exam before shoveling a couple of scripts at me.

One thing I think the US needs to do badly is outlaw commercial advertising of prescription drugs.

131 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:11:33pm

Mostly, when delivering large-scale services, economies of scale arise the larger you get. I'm not sure why the opposite is so routinely asserted.

132 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:11:46pm

re: #125 Obdicut

How so? Especially since the service we're talking about is health insurance.

Are you saying that we should have single-payer each run by individual states? The 'the scale is wrong' objection is odd to me because, if it were true, we could just subdivide the US and go from there. I'm not sure why it's seen as a valid argument.

That's what Canada does. Each province has its own healthcare system, with additional money from the federal government to ensure a nation-wide standard of care is met.

133 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:12:10pm

re: #124 sattv4u2

I'm sorry, but did someone tell you you HAD to be a free lance/ self employed artist?

Everyone in a low-wage job is obviously only there because they choose that life for themselves.

Those Walmart checkout drones would be doing so much better if they just went and worked for Goldman Sachs!

Seriously, that's a stupid argument.

134 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:12:13pm

re: #115 sattv4u2

No idea, but I sure would like to see an attempt to "reign in costs" in the current system

Fraud,, waste,,, uneeded regulations,,(and no, I'm not saying NO regulations, I'm talking about someone in lets say New York not being able to buy ins from a New Jersey company, or a Massachusetts having state mandated rate structures instead of competitive ones

Yeah, buying across state lines really allowed the credit card companies to lower costs for consumers.

135 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:12:49pm

re: #131 Obdicut

Mostly, when delivering large-scale services, economies of scale arise the larger you get. I'm not sure why the opposite is so routinely asserted.

Because there are very few other straws to clutch at in a very one-sided debate?

136 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:13:03pm

re: #128 iossarian

You take away the state lines restrictions, and all the insurance companies will move to the state with the least patient-friendly regulations. Since states will compete to have bad regulations in order to attract those companies and their white collar employees, this will be a rapid race to the bottom.

Face it, the US system is crappy (as evidenced by the GDP % spend, real dollar amount spend, and shit outcomes we get for it).

But the ins company will have to abide by the laws of the state in which the client is covered

137 Benghazzy Ben Ross  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:13:36pm

re: #134 recusancy

Yeah, buying across state lines really allowed the credit card companies to lower costs for consumers.

An excellent example of a sarcastic comment that turns its back on the sarc tag.

138 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:13:54pm

re: #19 Locker

Nice article. I've had a sign in my cube for the last five years that says simply:

Single Payer Now!

If our national priority was on the citizens rather than enriching pharmaceutical and insurance companies we'd have had this a long time ago.

apparantly we are the country most susceptible to having our national priorities set to whatever corporations see as good for them

and it doesn't look much like we will be able to stop them

so, those of us who believe that the republican party knows what's good for america, and that corporations should be freed from "onerous" public responsibilities - as we are told every day by members of the republican party -

will soon find out it seems what it is like to live in a country where government is by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations

139 reidr  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:08pm

re: #81 WindUpBird

GOD, START WITH 1!

actually, start with System Shock 2

The consensus seems to be I'm doing this horribly wrong. Well, 1 ought to be cheap now, what the heck....

140 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:09pm

re: #130 dragonfire1981

Having experience with both systems I prefer the Canadian. It's not perfect but when I needed emergency care while in college I was able to get it without breaking the bank. My hard of hearing mother can get a $20 000 cochlear implant surgery without having to pay a penny. There are issues of course but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Having seen doctors on both sides of the border I have found the Canadian doctors to be better in general. The last US doctor I saw asked me a few questions and barely performed an exam before shoveling a couple of scripts at me.

One thing I think the US needs to do badly is outlaw commercial advertising of prescription drugs.

Definitely agree. At one time not too long ago it was outlawed.

141 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:31pm

I think President Obama totally underplayed the idea that the well being of all Americans is important to each individual American, and overplayed the concern over the visible *prices* that appear on health bills. I understand why it was done, but I think it sacrificed the bigger picture for the near term goal of having a sellable piece of legislation to various interest groups.

142 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:42pm

re: #136 sattv4u2

But the ins company will have to abide by the laws of the state in which the client is covered

So when you say "buy across state lines" you mean "buy any plan that meets a state's minimum standards". Which will be different per state. Resulting in different plans for each state... wait, what was the point again?

143 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:53pm

re: #124 sattv4u2

did you know my friend the nurse works well over 40 hours a week at two different jobs, has no health insurance whatsoever because both jobs don't give her enough hours to get bennies? She's a nurse! caring for rich people (of course) no health insurance of her own


so yeah, suck it, GOP apologist, we see through your slime

144 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:14:54pm

re: #134 recusancy

Yeah, buying across state lines really allowed the credit card companies to lower costs for consumers.

Sorry, but a credit card is not a commodity.

145 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:15:10pm

re: #135 iossarian

Because there are very few other straws to clutch at in a very one-sided debate?

At some point you just have to call scum scum

146 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:16:15pm

re: #144 sattv4u2

Sorry, but a credit card is not a commodity.

And health care is? Both are a service.

147 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:16:40pm

re: #144 sattv4u2

Sorry, but a credit card is not a commodity.

How does that make any difference in this example?

148 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:16:52pm

re: #145 WindUpBird

At some point you just have to call scum scum

It's the stubbornness that gets to me. I mean, how many times do you need to see a chart that shows you how much money you save by going to single-payer?

"Nope, that's soshalusm. Can't have it."

149 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:16:57pm

re: #125 Obdicut

How so? Especially since the service we're talking about is health insurance.

Are you saying that we should have single-payer each run by individual states? The 'the scale is wrong' objection is odd to me because, if it were true, we could just subdivide the US and go from there. I'm not sure why it's seen as a valid argument.

No, that isn't what I said.

Consider this: The NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after India Rail and the Chinese army.

The NHS serves a population of a little less than 62 million. And the UK (and now Canada allow citizens to opt out).

Our population is roughly 5 times that.

The idea of a single payer system with our population opens up all kind of problems.

150 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:17:01pm

my favorite thing about rich GOP scum is when they claim they're not

151 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:17:10pm

re: #145 WindUpBird

At some point you just have to call scum scum

Yeah,, it's always pleasant to come here and have a debate without resorting to name calling

oh , wait ,, damn

152 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:17:28pm

re: #143 WindUpBird

did you know my friend the nurse works well over 40 hours a week at two different jobs, has no health insurance whatsoever because both jobs don't give her enough hours to get bennies? She's a nurse! caring for rich people (of course) no health insurance of her own

But... but... that's her CHOICE!

//

153 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:17:42pm

re: #149 researchok

Canada does not allow citizens to opt-out. Down dinged you for factually wrong information.

154 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:17:48pm

So if 7.5% is a median % of GDP to fully fund single payer medicare (just looking over the chart) how do we translate that into dollars or a tax % or ??
Would that be an additional 2% on taxable income? 5%? 10%?

155 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:18:25pm

re: #149 researchok

No, that isn't what I said.

Consider this: The NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after India Rail and the Chinese army.

The NHS serves a population of a little less than 62 million. And the UK (and now Canada allow citizens to opt out).

Our population is roughly 5 times that.

The idea of a single payer system with our population opens up all kind of problems.

And kids who have asthma but their parents can't afford to buy them drugs is apparently a lesser problem than figuring out how to run a large organization.

156 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:18:30pm

re: #150 WindUpBird

my favorite thing about rich GOP scum is when they claim they're not

Yup ,, as I stated,,,
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I'M RICH I TELL YA ,,, RICH!!

157 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:19:30pm

re: #149 researchok

No, that isn't what I said.

Consider this: The NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after India Rail and the Chinese army.

The NHS serves a population of a little less than 62 million. And the UK (and now Canada allow citizens to opt out).

Our population is roughly 5 times that.

The idea of a single payer system with our population opens up all kind of problems.

What problems would open up?

158 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:19:44pm

re: #156 sattv4u2

Yup ,, as I stated,,,
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I'M RICH I TELL YA ,,, RICH!!

What year was that and how much were you making?

159 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:20:23pm

re: #155 iossarian

And kids who have asthma but their parents can't afford to buy them drugs is apparently a lesser problem than figuring out how to run a large organization.

I'm not questioning the need for health care reform. I support the idea.

I am questioning the merits of a sungle payer system.

160 justaminute  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:20:31pm

re: #136 sattv4u2

But the ins company will have to abide by the laws of the state in which the client is covered

As long as the cost if shared across the US. I don't like my health insurance dependent on the party in power. Or how wealthy a state is.

161 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:20:38pm

re: #157 recusancy

What problems would open up?

Well, white people living in nice suburban houses would be paying for a system that also treated black people from the inner city, for one.

162 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:21:25pm

re: #149 researchok

From your link:

Almost 1.3 million people ...

Well, that is in the UK, which has very close to 20% of the population of the US.

How many people work in healthcare here in the US?

163 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:21:48pm

re: #150 WindUpBird

you think they're actually rich?

All fantasy man. Remember, I'm also a teenage girl (on the internet)!

164 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:22:00pm

re: #159 researchok

I'm not questioning the need for health care reform. I support the idea.

I am questioning the merits of a sungle payer system.

Given that all the available data indicates that a single payer system is more efficient than what we have now, what are your objections?

If it's the "size of the organization" thing, then how about supporting single-payer in every state (as Vermont is currently initiating)?

165 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:22:13pm

re: #157 recusancy

What problems would open up?

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

166 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:22:30pm

re: #164 iossarian

Given that all the available data indicates that a single payer system is more efficient than what we have now, what are your objections?

If it's the "size of the organization" thing, then how about supporting single-payer in every state (as Vermont is currently initiating)?

What data is that?

167 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:22:33pm

re: #163 windsagio

you think they're actually rich?

All fantasy man. Remember, I'm also a teenage girl (on the internet)!

AND I AM IN FACT A BLACK MAN

THE BLACKEST MAN :D

168 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:22:55pm

re: #149 researchok

No, that isn't what I said.

Consider this: The NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after India Rail and the Chinese army..

Why are you takling about the NHS, which is a fully socialized system, when talking about single payer? You know that they're very different, right?


Can you be explicit about the problems that a single payer system opens up that aren't already present under our multi-payer system?

169 SmithCommaJohn  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:00pm

I have a cousin who, for complicated reasons that I don't fully understand (something to do with his mother being exposed to hepatitis when she was pregnant with him), tests positive for HIV antibodies. However, he has never tested positive for the virus itself, and every doctor he's seen seems to agree that he doesn't have the virus, and will therefore never get AIDS.

Of course, when insurance companies screen people for pre-existing conditions, they test for HIV. The problem is that they seem to only do the antibody test, which is faster and cheaper than the virus test.

Guess how easy it is for him to get health insurance.

Whenever I pose this situation to a free-market fundamentalist, and ask how he, and people in similar situations, are supposed to afford healthcare, they stammer and sputter something about how the "market will find a solution." Fantastic. So, if he gets sick or injured and needs to go to the hospital, I'm sure he'll thank Ayn Rand when he gets the bill.

I honestly don't know if it's possible to have a perfect healthcare system. And, of course, what constitutes a "perfect" healthcare system rests heavily on your individual value judgments.

I do know, however, that we can do far better than what we've got, judged by virtually any standard.

Incidentally, I used to be an Atlas-Shrugged-thumping free-market fundamentalist. Of course, I eventually finished college and got a real job, which caused me to knock that crap off pretty quickly. Swallowing my pride and admitting to myself that I was wrong took some time, and wasn't fun, but at least I learned that I'm not a sociopath.

If presented with these facts as a hypothetical situation, even just a few years ago, I shudder at the thought of how callous my response might have been. Hopefully, the PPACA isn't repealed or gutted before it can be implemented. It may not be perfect (but, again, what does that even mean?) and it maybe it won't even solve any of the problems facing our healthcare system. But, it's worth a shot. And at this point, what have we got to lose?

170 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:13pm

re: #165 researchok

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

well, right now, we got dogshit

And I'd prefer something other than dogshit in this fakeass thing we laughingly refer to as the "Greatest Country on Earth"

171 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:16pm

re: #158 Varek Raith

What year was that and how much were you making?

I was about 27 years old,,,, 1981,, and I grossed just under $15,000 that year

Out of that, I paid my taxes, and my own health insurance,

172 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:28pm

re: #164 iossarian

Given that all the available data indicates that a single payer system is more efficient than what we have now, what are your objections?

If it's the "size of the organization" thing, then how about supporting single-payer in every state (as Vermont is currently initiating)?

I agree single payer systems might work in smaller populations but I am leery of they notion in larger populations.

173 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:29pm

re: #166 researchok

What data is that?

The original article we're talking about, for one?

The fact that the NHS has a non-care overhead of around 3%, vs. the US figure of roughly 25%, for another?

I mean come on, you have to be pretty obtuse to ignore the facts here.

174 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:23:40pm

re: #163 windsagio

you think they're actually rich?

All fantasy man. Remember, I'm also a teenage girl (on the internet)!

ummm,,, eerrr,,, I never stated I was

HE stated I was

Talk about fantasy!

175 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:08pm

re: #165 researchok

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

Why are you refusing to engage with France, Germany, and other single payer systems where the waits are not as long? In Germany, for example, the waits for many specialists are lower than in the US because they don't have to go through their primary care doctors, something which in the US insurance companies normally mandate.

Instead, you're referencing the UK-- which isn't a single-payer system, but an actually 'socialized medicine' one.

176 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:13pm

re: #167 WindUpBird

It's the thing tho'.

So much of the GOP tax support is poor people who think they will be rich or at least like to fantasize about it.

"Man if I were a rich entrepreneur, I'd totally hate these taxes that would keep me from being prodcutive!"

177 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:35pm

re: #169 SmithCommaJohn

Great comment.

178 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:37pm

re: #170 WindUpBird

well, right now, we got dogshit

And I'd prefer something other than dogshit in this fakeass thing we laughingly refer to as the "Greatest Country on Earth"

That's why I support health care reform.

There has be a better delivery vehicle in place than we have now.

179 freetoken  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:52pm

Before I run off to the gym, one final thought:

I do not object to our society spending a large portion of its economic activity on "health".

Unlike earlier times, we live past the age of 50 years, and our children have a better than 50% chance of making it past 2 years of age.

Our economic activity is due in part, via a positive feedback, on the longevity of contemporary humans and population growth. These are functions of our increased understanding of human health, and our willingness to expend resources on human health and well-being.

As we push back the frontiers of science and medicine we can expect ever more elaborate strategies to address health issues.

This will cost. And, I propose, it is worth paying.

180 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:24:55pm

re: #172 researchok

I agree single payer systems might work in smaller populations but I am leery of they notion in larger populations.

You do realize you haven't actually made any sort of case that a larger population is more problematic, right?

Or why, if it were, we couldn't subdivide in order to deliver single-payer?

181 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:25:11pm

re: #165 researchok

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

re: #1 windsagio

in before "Healthcare Rationing!"

(I trust nobody will actually try to pull 'death panels!' on here)

~~~~~

Lol

182 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:25:50pm

re: #171 sattv4u2

I was about 27 years old,,, 1981,, and I grossed just under $15,000 that year

Out of that, I paid my taxes, and my own health insurance,

That's about $40,000 in today's dollars, dude. With way the fuck cheaper health insurance than anyone can get now, you entitled retardate.


SO OUT OF TOUCH, THE GOP MAGNIFICENCE OF IT ALL

183 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:26:13pm

re: #180 Obdicut

it's funny 'cuz the reverse is true >

That's the whole point!


I think its an echo of the old 'communism works in small villages!' meme.

184 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:26:31pm

re: #176 windsagio

It's the thing tho'.

So much of the GOP tax support is poor people who think they will be rich or at least like to fantasize about it.

"Man if I were a rich entrepreneur, I'd totally hate these taxes that would keep me from being prodcutive!"

Hypnosis! It's like they're digging their own grave, and then happily voting for the guy who dances on their tombstones!

Comedy!

185 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:26:33pm

re: #165 researchok

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

Britain is a fully socialized system where the docs are government employees. What we're talking about is just single payer insurance. Only the insurance employees would be governmental. It's not a strong comparison at all.

Waiting periods will increase when you increase access for people. Do you think we should just keep some people out so our waiting times are shorter?

186 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:26:45pm

re: #182 WindUpBird

That's about $40,000 in today's dollars, dude. With way the fuck cheaper health insurance than anyone can get now, you entitled retardate.

SO OUT OF TOUCH, THE GOP MAGNIFICENCE OF IT ALL

Yup,, because gross $40,000 for a family of three is RICH today ,, RICH I TELL YA !

187 AK-47%  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:26:56pm

re: #176 windsagio

It's the thing tho'.

So much of the GOP tax support is poor people who think they will be rich or at least like to fantasize about it.

"Man if I were a rich entrepreneur, I'd totally hate these taxes that would keep me from being prodcutive!"

When we play Monopoly, we have an "Obamatax" rule: the income tax is only $100 until you get a monopoly, then you have to pay the ful $200.

At one point my daughter had a chance to get a monopoly, but turned it down because she did not want to have to pay the $200 income tax.

My nine-year-old daughter has the Republican mentality down pat...

188 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:27:37pm

BTW, "expanded bureaucracy" is the biggest lie of the lot. One of the biggest problems with the US system is precisely that it employs an army of insurance agents to chase money backwards and forwards, contributing to the massive non-care overhead.

Go to single-payer and you largely eliminate that massive waste.

189 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:27:48pm

re: #187 ralphieboy

As an aside, they could make an encyclopedia out of custom monopoly rules... and it would be an awesome read.

190 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:27:52pm

re: #183 windsagio

it's funny 'cuz the reverse is true >

That's the whole point!

I think its an echo of the old 'communism works in small villages!' meme.

the magic of talking points

191 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:28:10pm

re: #188 iossarian

And, often, employees in doctor's offices whose sole job is to navigate insurance forms, make claims, etc.

192 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:28:56pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

Yup,, because gross $40,000 for a family of three is RICH today ,, RICH I TELL YA !

If you had two earners in the household and the other one was making half of that, you'd be in the upper 50% of the US easily.

Out of touch doesn't even begin to cover it.

193 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:29:00pm

re: #165 researchok

The same as in Canada and Britain.

Beds shut down, waiiting periods for tests and surgeries increased, expanded bureaucracy, etc.

I don't mind a multi tiered system but single payer is no panacea.

When Obama's health care plan was being sold, the number of uninsured was always a different number from day to day. One day it was 36 million, the next day it was 32 million, etc. The majority of people in the United States (91%?) have some form of health insurance, and most are happy with it. Wouldn't it have been a lot less painful for Obama if he had come out and fixed the obvious problems like if you get sick your insurer can not drop you, and then found a way to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover the uninsured?

It seems to me that the whole debate was American politics in BOLD: Overestimate the problem, undersell the cost (remember, the price tag had to be under $1T). Then the shit hits the fan, you end up doing whatever means are necessary to get the job done, and then you chalk it up to "business as usual." Aren't we tired of business as usual, for Christ's sake?

194 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:29:12pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

Yup,, because gross $40,000 for a family of three is RICH today ,, RICH I TELL YA !

What were your premiums?

195 AK-47%  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:29:15pm

re: #179 freetoken

I also see this in broader terms: one job of the government is to maintain a nation's resources for everyone's benefit. I think that the nation's health is a resource that has to be managed so that it benefits everyone.

If that means regulating health care, then that is a role that government should assume just as it regulates safety, commerce, transportation, clean air, water and food standards.

196 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:30:02pm

re: #169 SmithCommaJohn

Favorite paragraph:

Incidentally, I used to be an Atlas-Shrugged-thumping free-market fundamentalist. Of course, I eventually finished college and got a real job, which caused me to knock that crap off pretty quickly. Swallowing my pride and admitting to myself that I was wrong took some time, and wasn't fun, but at least I learned that I'm not a sociopath.
197 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:30:04pm

re: #194 McSpiff

What were your premiums?

Marvel as he doesn't tell you :)

198 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:30:36pm

re: #192 iossarian

If you had two earners in the household and the other one was making half of that, you'd be in the upper 50% of the US easily.

Out of touch doesn't even begin to cover it.

Yup,, because twice as much as poverty level is awash in cash

RICH I TELL YA ,, RICH !!

199 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:30:46pm

re: #175 Obdicut

Why are you refusing to engage with France, Germany, and other single payer systems where the waits are not as long? In Germany, for example, the waits for many specialists are lower than in the US because they don't have to go through their primary care doctors, something which in the US insurance companies normally mandate.

Instead, you're referencing the UK-- which isn't a single-payer system, but an actually 'socialized medicine' one.

It is a multi tiered system which allows fro both public and private health care. It is the public system that is the problem.

Canada until recently had a single payer system (called by the some the North Korea moderl because their system forbade private healthcare. Their supreme court knocked it down. The said an individual can seek out better health care and pay for it if he so desires.

Within months clinics and small hospitals opened in most provinces.

The NDP leader inb Ontario went to a private clinic ('By mistake' he said) and a Canadian premier came to the US for health care.

200 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:30:59pm

re: #188 iossarian

BTW, "expanded bureaucracy" is the biggest lie of the lot. One of the biggest problems with the US system is precisely that it employs an army of insurance agents to chase money backwards and forwards, contributing to the massive non-care overhead.

Go to single-payer and you largely eliminate that massive waste.

I have a GP friend who has a small practice. One doctor, one nurse, one receptionist who also handles patient files, etc.. SIX EMPLOYEES. That means 3 full time employees just to deal with insurance, referrals, insurance collections, etc.

I guess it does add to jobs.

201 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:31:20pm

re: #149 researchok

No, that isn't what I said.

Consider this: The NHS is the third largest employer in the world, after India Rail and the Chinese army.

The NHS serves a population of a little less than 62 million. And the UK (and now Canada allow citizens to opt out).

Our population is roughly 5 times that.

The idea of a single payer system with our population opens up all kind of problems.

the idea that the size of this country makes an efficient and sane policy impossible is nonsense

202 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:31:33pm

re: #186 sattv4u2

Yup,, because gross $40,000 for a family of three is RICH today ,, RICH I TELL YA !

my premiums now, if I had a family of three would be more than my salary, if I were still at my old job :) I would literally be paying them


You might just be a liar, like brookly, though, brookly red with his imaginary girlfriends

203 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:31:53pm

Satt, you got mail.

204 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:32:13pm

re: #201 engineer dog

the idea that the size of this country makes an efficient and sane policy impossible is nonsense

The GOP is nonsense, and Satt is probably making shit up

another day on LGF

205 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:32:24pm

re: #202 WindUpBird

Black peurto rican girlfriend!

206 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:32:26pm

re: #200 allegro

I have a GP friend who has a small practice. One doctor, one nurse, one receptionist who also handles patient files, etc.. SIX EMPLOYEES. That means 3 full time employees just to deal with insurance, referrals, insurance collections, etc.

I guess it does add to jobs.

It's paying people to do busy-work is what it is.

But those damn ass furriners are all soshalist an' stuff, and we can't have that in the good ol' USA!

207 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:33:11pm

Remember kids, the way it was in 1981, that's totally how it is now!

Seriously, is Satt lying, or just full of shit? There's a difference, i went from thinking the latter, I'm starting to think the former

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:33:45pm

re: #205 windsagio

Black peurto rican girlfriend!

I like that he still can't spell

hanging out with all the other bad spellers, haha

209 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:33:46pm

re: #195 ralphieboy

I also see this in broader terms: one job of the government is to maintain a nation's resources for everyone's benefit. I think that the nation's health is a resource that has to be managed so that it benefits everyone.

If that means regulating health care, then that is a role that government should assume just as it regulates safety, commerce, transportation, clean air, water and food standards.

the difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats believe we live in a society - a community of people co-operating to build a life together, whereas republicans believe we live in a jungle ruled by social darwinistic rules designed to breed better consumers and capitalists

210 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:33:48pm

re: #207 WindUpBird

Remember kids, the way it was in 1981, that's totally how it is now!

Seriously, is Satt lying, or just full of shit? There's a difference, i went from thinking the latter, I'm starting to think the former

30 years ago. He doesn't seem to understand that..

211 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:34:33pm

I just can't help noticing that all the people defending our broken system have totally already got theirs

212 justaminute  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:34:36pm

All I know for sure is I have MS and up until 4 months ago my insurance was $1,300 month and that's just me alone. Not suffering symptoms only go to a doctor 2 times a year. I'm not on any MS medication either. But when portions of the ACA started getting implemented the insurance company lowered my rates to $560 a month because they would have to reimburse me at what I charged per month minus actual costs and admin. costs. I was happy.

213 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:34:47pm

re: #202 WindUpBird

my premiums now, if I had a family of three would be more than my salary, if I were still at my old job :) I would literally be paying them

You might just be a liar, like brookly, though, brookly red with his imaginary girlfriends

My last real job I paid (for me only, single, no kids) was $25 a week. And 80% paid for hospital stays. Dr's visits were $25 out of pocket.

214 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:34:57pm

re: #199 researchok

You still can't get most major surgeries privately. Same with many specialists, etc. There are no large scale private hospitals in Canada, nor will there be any time soon. Simply isn't the market.

215 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:22pm

re: #211 WindUpBird

I just can't help noticing that all the people defending our broken system have totally already got theirs

Yeah, no out-of-work heart-attack survivors speaking up for the status quo.

"You shouldn't have had a heart attack and lost your job."

216 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:23pm

re: #210 McSpiff

30 years ago. He doesn't seem to understand that..

because republicans are fucking stupid

217 RadicalModerate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:24pm

Just when you think the Koch front group "Americans for Prosperity" can't stoop any lower...

Conservative group: Fake eviction notices were 'meant to startle people'


The state director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity offered no apologies today for papering homes in Detroit’s Delray district Monday with fake eviction notices.

Bearing the words “Eviction Notice” in large type, the bogus notices told homeowners their properties could be taken by the Michigan Department of Transportation to make way for the New International Trade Crossing bridge project. The NITC is the subject of debate in Lansing, and Americans for Prosperity is lobbying heavily against it.

...they start using Klan-style intimidation tactics against people who might oppose their agenda.

218 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:50pm

re: #212 justaminute

All I know for sure is I have MS and up until 4 months ago my insurance was $1,300 month and that's just me alone. Not suffering symptoms only go to a doctor 2 times a year. I'm not on any MS medication either. But when portions of the ACA started getting implemented the insurance company lowered my rates to $560 a month because they would have to reimburse me at what I charged per month minus actual costs and admin. costs. I was happy.

sshhh!

Satt says in 1981 he was fellated by his insurance and it was SO SWEET

219 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:54pm

re: #194 McSpiff

What were your premiums?

1981 was $400(+/-) a month ((can't recall the exact figure,,, but I was single at the time)
About 10 years later when I 1st got married, it was just over $500 a month

Today, family of three ,, just over $500 every two weeks

220 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:35:54pm

re: #185 recusancy

Britain is a fully socialized system where the docs are government employees. What we're talking about is just single payer insurance. Only the insurance employees would be governmental. It's not a strong comparison at all.

Waiting periods will increase when you increase access for people. Do you think we should just keep some people out so our waiting times are shorter?

No, of course not (re waiting)

My fear is that single system will result in a huge bureaucratic nightmare.

Again, I support health care reform. I just believe a multi tiered approach is better.

It is true when this debate started, 30 million Americans were uninsured.

I believe it wouild have been smarter to star health care reform by finding a way to cover those 30 million people as opposed to rewriting health care for 330 million people.

221 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:36:46pm

re: #212 justaminute

All I know for sure is I have MS and up until 4 months ago my insurance was $1,300 month and that's just me alone. Not suffering symptoms only go to a doctor 2 times a year. I'm not on any MS medication either. But when portions of the ACA started getting implemented the insurance company lowered my rates to $560 a month because they would have to reimburse me at what I charged per month minus actual costs and admin. costs. I was happy.

ACA = Obamacare for anyone not aware.

222 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:37:11pm

re: #211 WindUpBird

I just can't help noticing that all the people defending our broken system have totally already got theirs

Well, I'm not defending the system.

As I noted, we need health care reform. I'm talking about what that kind of reform ought to look like.

223 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:37:21pm

re: #197 WindUpBird

Marvel as he doesn't tell you :)

Marvel at you being wrong

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

224 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:37:29pm

HEY GUYS

IN 1981 MY INSURANCE TOTALLY SUCKED BY DICK AND IT WAS SWEET


I HAD A FAMILY OF ELEVEN AND MAN I PAID MY TAXES AND THEN I HAD 15 EMPLOYEES BUT I'M STILL POOR

225 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:38:28pm

re: #222 researchok

I am allergic to GOP talking points, heard them all

226 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:38:31pm

re: #222 researchok

Well, I'm not defending the system.

As I noted, we need health care reform. I'm talking about what that kind of reform ought to look like.

Right, and you're ruling out a system that has been proven to work in other large countries that look a lot like ours, because of *waves hands* and *makes face*.

227 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:38:51pm

re: #220 researchok

My fear is that single system will result in a huge bureaucratic nightmare

um, all private insurers come with their own individual huge bureaucratic nightmares

single payer has its faults but it gives the government the leverage to seriously control prices, which are the real problem

228 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:39:08pm

re: #213 Cannadian Club Akbar

My last real job I paid (for me only, single, no kids) was $25 a week. And 80% paid for hospital stays. Dr's visits were $25 out of pocket.

THAT'D BE NICE!

229 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:39:12pm

re: #203 Cannadian Club Akbar

Satt, you got mail.

Got it,, thanks

Will respond later

230 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:39:27pm

re: #219 sattv4u2

1981 was $400(+/-) a month ((can't recall the exact figure,,, but I was single at the time)
About 10 years later when I 1st got married, it was just over $500 a month

Today, family of three ,, just over $500 every two weeks

$1000 a month for health insurance, $12,000 a year and the average American household income is $45,000. That means best case for many American families a quarter of their income would be going to healthcare. As you get poorer, that % only gets higher.

231 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:39:29pm

re: #226 iossarian

Right, and you're ruling out a system that has been proven to work in other large countries that look a lot like ours, because of *waves hands* and *makes face*.

Which large countries? And what kind of populations?

232 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:40:08pm

Is insurance cost still pre tax now?

233 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:40:39pm

re: #220 researchok


My fear is that single system will result in a huge bureaucratic nightmare.

It could be four times less efficient than the NHS, and would still be twice as efficient as what we have now.

Seriously, stop with the bullshit "bureaucratic nightmare" stuff.

234 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:40:45pm

re: #227 engineer dog

um, all private insurers come with their own individual huge bureaucratic nightmares

single payer has its faults but it gives the government the leverage to seriously control prices, which are the real problem

That is the best argument for single payer.

The bureaucracy matter is till one of concern, though.

235 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:40:51pm

re: #230 McSpiff
Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

236 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:40:57pm

re: #230 McSpiff

$1000 a month for health insurance, $12,000 a year and the average American household income is $45,000. That means best case for many American families a quarter of their income would be going to healthcare. As you get poorer, that % only gets higher.

That's just the insurance. It doesn't include the co-pays, deductible, and percentage of costs.

237 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:15pm

so on one hand I got Satt making shit up about health care, and on the other I got NJD trying to pretend that the GOP and the Dems are the same with regard to gay rights

It's been SUCH a good day for newspeak!

238 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:42pm

re: #233 iossarian

It could be four times less efficient than the NHS, and would still be twice as efficient as what we have now.

Seriously, stop with the bullshit "bureaucratic nightmare" stuff.



talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

talkingpoints lol

239 elizajane  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:47pm

re: #169 SmithCommaJohn

I have a cousin who, for complicated reasons that I don't fully understand (something to do with his mother being exposed to hepatitis when she was pregnant with him), tests positive for HIV antibodies. However, he has never tested positive for the virus itself, and every doctor he's seen seems to agree that he doesn't have the virus, and will therefore never get AIDS.

Of course, when insurance companies screen people for pre-existing conditions, they test for HIV. The problem is that they seem to only do the antibody test, which is faster and cheaper than the virus test.

Guess how easy it is for him to get health insurance.

...Hopefully, the PPACA isn't repealed or gutted before it can be implemented. It may not be perfect (but, again, what does that even mean?) and it maybe it won't even solve any of the problems facing our healthcare system. But, it's worth a shot. And at this point, what have we got to lose?

I'm sorry for your cousin. I have a 15-year-old daughter with HBV (HepB), and an 11-year-old who has cleared the virus but will always test as having the antibodies. I have no idea how either one will ever get insured in the USA. And the one who actually carries the virus will be in dire danger if she is ever uninsured. She could have liver failure at any time. We keep money set aside in case she needs a transplant some day but who knows what it will cost when she needs it?

I hate to be encouraging her to find work overseas after college but unless things are different here by then, what else can she do?

It amazes me how frightened people are of government bureaucracies. Have they never encountered the bureaucracy of an insurance company? Isn't Rick Scott enough of a poster boy for what those businesses can stand for? They are profitable to the degree that they are heartless, and I speak as the child of an insurance-company family.

240 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:49pm

re: #237 WindUpBird

so on one hand I got Satt making shit up about health care, and on the other I got NJD trying to pretend that the GOP and the Dems are the same with regard to gay rights

It's been SUCH a good day for newspeak!

What did I "make up"?

241 RadicalModerate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:50pm

re: #232 Cannadian Club Akbar

Is insurance cost still pre tax now?

All insurance payments are collected post-tax. Only tax-deferred contributions (like 401-K accounts) are collected pre-tax.

242 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:41:57pm

re: #235 sattv4u2

Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

Gov. Christie Thinks A Family Making $6,000 A Year Is Too Rich To Qualify For Medicaid

243 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:42:02pm

re: #233 iossarian

It could be four times less efficient than the NHS, and would still be twice as efficient as what we have now.

Seriously, stop with the bullshit "bureaucratic nightmare" stuff.

You don't see that as an issue? Why?

244 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:42:11pm

re: #231 researchok

Which large countries? And what kind of populations?

France, The UK, Germany etc. But I suppose you'll now tell me how our situation is vastly different and we can't possibly run a large organization.

245 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:42:15pm

re: #236 allegro

That's just the insurance. It doesn't include the co-pays, deductible, and percentage of costs.

the instant you go to the hospital, you're fucking bankrupt

246 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:42:21pm

re: #237 WindUpBird

so on one hand I got Satt making shit up about health care, and on the other I got NJD trying to pretend that the GOP and the Dems are the same with regard to gay rights

It's been SUCH a good day for newspeak!

Can I tell ya my thoughts on the budget?!?!?!?!
///

247 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:42:35pm

re: #235 sattv4u2

Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

Why the scare quotes? You may want to check out when those additional options kick in, there's quite a large gap. No matter how you cut it, many Americans are now paying a significant chunk of their income to health insurance, if they're lucky enough to have access to the plans you have/had.

248 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:06pm
249 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:28pm

re: #247 McSpiff

Why the scare quotes? You may want to check out when those additional options kick in, there's quite a large gap. No matter how you cut it, many Americans are now paying a significant chunk of their income to health insurance, if they're lucky enough to have access to the plans you have/had.

Wasn't a scare quote

Was using your phrase

250 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:35pm

re: #220 researchok

No, of course not (re waiting)

My fear is that single system will result in a huge bureaucratic nightmare.

Again, I support health care reform. I just believe a multi tiered approach is better.

It is true when this debate started, 30 million Americans were uninsured.

I believe it wouild have been smarter to star health care reform by finding a way to cover those 30 million people as opposed to rewriting health care for 330 million people.

I agree, along with major tweaks such as not allowing an insurer to drop you if you get sick, creating a pool for those that lose their jobs and their insurance or, allowing them to keep it until they find another job. Also, those with pre-existing conditions that do not have insurance could join a risk pool with funds diverted from Medicare/Caid to cover them. Sorry, but you can not make an insurance company cover your pre-existing condition and expect health care costs for everyone else to go down. This was so simple, I'm almost shocked that Obama didn't take the lead and frame the debate (Oops, he is a politician, sorry) instead of letting the House Democrats go batshit crazy with it. If Obama had tried this, i really believe he could have had the Republicans on the ropes, as well as a big feather in his cap.

251 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:47pm

re: #220 researchok

No, of course not (re waiting)

My fear is that single system will result in a huge bureaucratic nightmare.

Again, I support health care reform. I just believe a multi tiered approach is better.

It is true when this debate started, 30 million Americans were uninsured.

I believe it wouild have been smarter to star health care reform by finding a way to cover those 30 million people as opposed to rewriting health care for 330 million people.

That's your problem right there. You can't just find money and resources to get those 30 million uninsured access. You have to change other things to get them in. It sounds good to say but it doesn't work in practice (or theory if you crunch the numbers).

We already have a huge (and I mean huge) bureaucratic nightmare with private insurance companies. You have to jump through so many damn hoops to get insurance and then more to actually use it and then the doctor has to jump through more to get paid. Drop the ideology and do what works. Single payer works.

252 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:49pm

re: #154 Rightwingconspirator

So if 7.5% is a median % of GDP to fully fund single payer medicare (just looking over the chart) how do we translate that into dollars or a tax % or ??
Would that be an additional 2% on taxable income? 5%? 10%?

Looking at the web I see in France they spend about 21% of their income to fund the system. Everybody comfortable with that? (Look at the 3rd paragraphin the paragraph titled Cost Of Care)

253 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:49pm

re: #232 Cannadian Club Akbar

Is insurance cost still pre tax now?

Mine is.

254 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:43:57pm

re: #199 researchok

It is a multi tiered system which allows fro both public and private health care. It is the public system that is the problem.

I'm sorry, but you're aliding health care and health insurance. This is a basic mistake and really damages your argument. Can you please stop doing it?

255 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:44:36pm

re: #243 researchok

You don't see that as an issue? Why?

Are you even reading what I write? The current system is woefully inefficient: insurance companies have a roughly 25% non-care overhead.

That same non-care overhead in the NHS is, I believe, calculated to be around 3%.

So why do you insist on claiming that a similar organization in the US would be a "bureaucratic nightmare"? Are Americans just no good at running large organizations?

256 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:44:48pm

re: #249 sattv4u2

Wasn't a scare quote

Was using your phrase

Poorer isn't a phrase. If you have less money than me, you're poorer than me.

257 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:44:58pm

re: #251 recusancy

That's your problem right there. You can't just find money and resources to get those 30 million uninsured access. You have to change other things to get them in. It sounds good to say but it doesn't work in practice (or theory if you crunch the numbers).

We already have a huge (and I mean huge) bureaucratic nightmare with private insurance companies. You have to jump through so many damn hoops to get insurance and then more to actually use it and then the doctor has to jump through more to get paid. Drop the ideology and do what works. Single payer works.


And government controlled mandates will be more efficient?

258 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:45:11pm

re: #235 sattv4u2

Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

you don't know shit, rich man

259 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:45:21pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

Looking at the web I see in France they spend about 21% of their income to fund the system. Everybody comfortable with that? (Look at the 3rd paragraphin the paragraph titled Cost Of Care)

What is the difference between paying it in taxes and paying it to a semi-monopoly private insurance company?

260 SmithCommaJohn  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:45:36pm

re: #196 wrenchwench

Favorite paragraph:

re: #257 researchok


And government controlled mandates will be more efficient?

Possibly, yes.

261 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:45:55pm

re: #201 engineer dog

the idea that the size of this country makes an efficient and sane policy impossible is nonsense

Yes. We need to sub-divide our military right away. Rhode Island wants the Navy. All of it...

/

262 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:46:13pm

re: #243 researchok

You don't see that as an issue? Why?

you act like massive bureaucracy will be mandated in the bill

besides, the u.s. armed forces is one of the most notorious "massive bureaucracies" on the face of the earth and they manage to do things pretty well...

263 iossarian  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:46:13pm

re: #257 researchok


And government controlled mandates will be more efficient?

Yes, as evidenced by Western Europe.

Seriously, enough with the ideology.

Anyway, got to get out of here now. Later everyone.

264 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:46:13pm

re: #261 oaktree

Yes. We need to sub-divide our military right away. Rhode Island wants the Navy. All of it...

/

I call dibs on the Air Force!

265 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:46:59pm

re: #258 WindUpBird

you don't know shit, rich man

Again, what did I lie about?

266 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:47:41pm

re: #264 Varek Raith

I call dibs on the Air Force!

Can I have Quadaffy's girl/virgin/commando team?
/

267 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:47:53pm

re: #257 researchok


And government controlled mandates will be more efficient?

Yes. Medicare is more efficient then private insurance and that is for the most expensive, unprofitable customers.

268 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:47:54pm

re: #256 McSpiff

Poorer isn't a phrase. If you have less money than me, you're poorer than me.

I dont, nor didn't disagree

Again, I just used your word

269 SmithCommaJohn  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:48:03pm

re: #264 Varek Raith

I call dibs on the Air Force!

Aww man, that's what I wanted.

I call Marines. I just don't want to get stuck with the Coast Guard. Boring!

270 Varek Raith  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:48:56pm

re: #269 SmithCommaJohn

Aww man, that's what I wanted.

I call Marines. I just don't want to get stuck with the Coast Guard. Boring!

I'll send a B52 to drop water balloons on Satt's house.
/

271 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:05pm

re: #269 SmithCommaJohn

Aww man, that's what I wanted.

I call Marines. I just don't want to get stuck with the Coast Guard. Boring!


I'd like just Naval Aviation. You guys can have the rest...

272 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:09pm

re: #235 sattv4u2

Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

the rich guy telling us how it is, hahaha

I wonder if the rich man has ever seen a schizophrenic guy kicked out of a respite home because of budget cuts


I suspect not!

But you know, there are subsidies!

There are options!


Says the GOP talking point

273 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:09pm

re: #255 iossarian

Are you even reading what I write? The current system is woefully inefficient: insurance companies have a roughly 25% non-care overhead.

That same non-care overhead in the NHS is, I believe, calculated to be around 3%.

So why do you insist on claiming that a similar organization in the US would be a "bureaucratic nightmare"? Are Americans just no good at running large organizations?

Here's an example of the NHS 'efficiency' you are talking about, just released today:

Neurology care 'patchy and inefficient'

The NHS is failing to provide proper care for up to 10 million Britons who have a neurological condition such as migraine, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease, physicians warn in a report.

Too many patients requiring specialist attention do not get to see a neurologist, while badly organised services may mean that some people's treatment is less than ideal, it is claimed.

More 'efficiency:

Patients Deaths Due To Being Kept Waiting In Ambulances

An investigation has been launched into the death of two patients in their 80s assessed as very sick by ambulance crews and both suspected of having suffered heart attacks Monday, but were left waiting in ambulances due to a shortage of beds which prevented them from getting into the Royal Oldham Hospital for seven and 20 minutes, respectively.

None of the five resuscitation beds at Royal Oldham ­Hospital were available, while A&E was so busy that except for the most urgent

274 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:12pm

re: #269 SmithCommaJohn

Aww man, that's what I wanted.

I call Marines. I just don't want to get stuck with the Coast Guard. Boring!

Ya, but the Coast Guard finds bales. Just sayin'.;)

275 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:35pm

re: #272 WindUpBird

Third time

What did I "lie" about?

276 RadicalModerate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:37pm

re: #235 sattv4u2

Except as you get "poorer" there are more options for gov;t (fed, state and local) subsidies

Which are usually *just* enough to keep them from starving and on the street - and a mere pittance compared to the tax shelters, subsidies, and other financial windfalls that are afforded to people who just so happen to be multi-millionaires.

277 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:40pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

Look also at the next paragraph...

Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.

278 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:49:51pm

re: #263 iossarian

Yes, as evidenced by Western Europe.

Seriously, enough with the ideology.

Anyway, got to get out of here now. Later everyone.


Anti-government paranoia, gotta love it

279 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:50:31pm

re: #271 rwdflynavy

I'd like just Naval Aviation. You guys can have the rest...

CAMP DAVID ,,,I WANT CAMP DAVID !

280 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:51:12pm

re: #259 Obdicut

That would be 21% on top of what we pay now. That's a lot of money.
Excerpt
To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)

281 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:51:27pm

re: #276 RadicalModerate

Which are usually *just* enough to keep them from starving and on the street - and a mere pittance compared to the tax shelters, subsidies, and other financial windfalls that are afforded to people who just so happen to be multi-millionaires.

I don't disagree

I was making a factual point that there is need based assistance availbale

282 researchok  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:51:38pm

re: #267 recusancy

Yes. Medicare is more efficient then private insurance and that is for the most expensive, unprofitable customers.

Medicare isn't 330 million plus people, for starters

283 McSpiff  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:52:07pm

re: #279 sattv4u2

CAMP DAVID ,,,I WANT CAMP DAVID !

I'll take Kings Bay I think...

284 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:52:25pm

re: #275 sattv4u2

Third time

What did I "lie" about?

Sorry, your shit smells to me. Doesn't add up. Fake anecdotes that always seem a little too perfect. Smells like brookly and his fake girlfriends and his pakistani slurs. Smells like Mandy and her imaginary kid that kept changing age back and forth.

You smell, dude, smell like they smell, smells like made up bullshit, smells like talking points

285 blueraven  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:52:59pm

re: #216 WindUpBird

because republicans are fucking stupid

C'mon WUB. That is just out of line and totally unnecessary.

286 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:53:54pm

re: #280 Rightwingconspirator

That would be 21% on top of what we pay now. That's a lot of money.
Excerpt
To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)

Once again you fail to include the very next paragraph...

Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.

287 recusancy  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:07pm

re: #282 researchok

Medicare isn't 330 million plus people, for starters

So what? This seems to be your only argument.

288 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:07pm

re: #225 WindUpBird

I am allergic to GOP talking points, heard them all

As opposed to Democratic talking points?

289 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:08pm

re: #280 Rightwingconspirator

That would be 21% on top of what we pay now. That's a lot of money.
Excerpt
To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)

I'll take 21% over bankruptcy and no insurance!

but I'm just not GOP enough for you guys

290 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:10pm

re: #284 WindUpBird

Sorry, your shit smells to me. Doesn't add up. Fake anecdotes that always seem a little too perfect. Smells like brookly and his fake girlfriends and his pakistani slurs. Smells like Mandy and her imaginary kid that kept changing age back and forth.

You smell, dude, smell like they smell, smells like made up bullshit, smells like talking points

I see

So you have no evidence of me lying, just a wild hopeful charge that I am because I "smell"

You challenged that I wouldn't give the figures of what I paid, then and now

But I did, so that tactic didn't work, so therefore I must have lied!

Cool

291 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:26pm

re: #280 Rightwingconspirator

That would be 21% on top of what we pay now.

No, it wouldn't. It would be minus the amount we pay now for medicare and medicaid, since that's included in the French system. In addition, once you've paid your taxes on that health insurance you don't have very many costs in France; in the US, you may pay a lot for insurance and still pay a lot for your medical care.

So no, it's not 21% on top, since you have to subtract the cost of medicare/medicaid. In addition, the total cost to the user isn't going to be even that number, it'll be that 21% - the medicare/medicaid tax - their insurance premiums - what they pay for health care.

292 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:54:48pm

re: #277 allegro

I'm not at all sure the article adds up. $3,300 is 21% of their income?! Or is that the 11% and the employer is paying the other $3,300 (roughly)?

293 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:55:18pm

re: #284 WindUpBird

re: #290 sattv4u2

I see

So you have no evidence of me lying, just a wild hopeful charge that I am because I "smell"

You challenged that I wouldn't give the figures of what I paid, then and now

But I did, so that tactic didn't work, so therefore I must have lied!

Cool

So again, what did I lie about?

294 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:55:35pm

re: #290 sattv4u2

Do you ever get the feeling that you are pounding your head against a brick wall?

295 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:55:57pm

re: #293 sattv4u2

re: #290 sattv4u2


So again, what did I lie about?


Dude, let it go. Don't make him unleash CAPS LOCK on your ass again!
//

296 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:56:11pm

re: #294 Bubblehead II

Do you ever get the feeling that you are pounding your head against a brick wall?

I'd be lying if I said no!!

;)

297 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:56:47pm

re: #273 researchok

don't you know that it would be just as easy if not considerably more so to come up with horror stories about medical care and health insurance in the united states?

one dead sparrow doesn't make a silent spring

298 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:57:09pm

re: #295 rwdflynavy

Dude, let it go. Don't make him unleash CAPS LOCK on your ass again!
//

LOL ,, thanks,, I needed that as well as #294

Thank you both

299 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:57:19pm

re: #292 Rightwingconspirator

I'm not at all sure the article adds up. $3,300 is 21% of their income?! Or is that the 11% and the employer is paying the other $3,300 (roughly)?

That is per capita spending on health care.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.

300 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:58:00pm

re: #282 researchok

Medicare isn't 330 million plus people, for starters

again with the size fallacy

i'm wasting my breath

301 simoom  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:58:39pm

Media Matters has an interesting breakdown of the guests news networks have had on, over the last year-and-a-half, to discuss whether or not the EPA should regulate Green House Gas emissions (which side of the issue they're on, the partisan makeup, elected rep appearances, etc):
[Link: mediamatters.org...]

The breakdowns aren't totally unexpected, though still depressing. What I was surprised by was how much massively less all the other networks cover the topic than FNC and FBN:
Image: epa-20110603-tv_guests-item.png

302 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:58:40pm

re: #289 WindUpBird

Pull another 21% from most folks bottom line and you'll get bankruptcies all right. Most of us do not pay nearly that much in premiums to insurers like blue cross. Say $50,000 in income is $875 a month in medical coverage. I can see that covering a family, but then ya gotta add 21% of the spousal income.

303 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:59:01pm

Is now a bad time to mention I haven't had a cold or the flu in 14 years? Mkay.
/

304 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:59:51pm

perhaps we should start asserting that democracy might be ok for switzerland, but would never work in a country the size of the united states

305 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 2:59:59pm

re: #302 Rightwingconspirator

Pull another 21% from most folks bottom line and you'll get bankruptcies all right.

See above. It is not another 21% from most folks bottom line. That is in no way accurate.

It is 21% minus the amount they pay in medicare/medicaid tax, minus the amount they pay for their health insurance, minus the amount they pay for health care.

So, it will in fact leave a lot of people better off than in the US system.

306 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:00:29pm

re: #302 Rightwingconspirator

read obdicuts post(s), he's done it at least twice now.

307 RadicalModerate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:08pm

re: #276 RadicalModerate

Which are usually *just* enough to keep them from starving and on the street - and a mere pittance compared to the tax shelters, subsidies, and other financial windfalls that are afforded to people who just so happen to be multi-millionaires.

Here's another point - compare "safety nets" that are afforded the very rich, versus those of lesser financial wealth.

Things like bankruptcy. If someone in the lower to middle income class has to deal with one, they are pretty much done for financially (in the ability to get loans, credit, or purchase a home) for the better part of a decade, if not longer.

On the other hand, if you are a Donald Trump or any other of the super-rich, and have thrown away millions of (usually other people's) dollars, there is an entire network of assistance to protect most of your own money and possessions. You might have to sell off one of the summer homes in the Hamptons, but hey, them's the breaks. Oh, and those losses you suffered because of the bankruptcy? Well, most of those can be written off on your taxes, where you'll get a nice percentage of that money back.

308 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:09pm

re: #303 Cannadian Club Akbar

Is now a bad time to mention I haven't had a cold or the flu in 14 years? Mkay.
/

All that alcohol consumption paid off, huh!

309 engineer cat  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:28pm

re: #273 researchok

Here's an example of the NHS 'efficiency' you are talking about, just released today:

Neurology care 'patchy and inefficient'

More 'efficiency:

Patients Deaths Due To Being Kept Waiting In Ambulances

or, to put the question the other way around

please demonstrate to us how health care delivery in the united states is so much better than any other country

310 allegro  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:32pm

re: #302 Rightwingconspirator

Pull another 21% from most folks bottom line and you'll get bankruptcies all right. Most of us do not pay nearly that much in premiums to insurers like blue cross. Say $50,000 in income is $875 a month in medical coverage. I can see that covering a family, but then ya gotta add 21% of the spousal income.

Look at the ENTIRE cost picture. That $875 is for insurance ONLY. It does not include what you and spouse are both paying for Medicare. It does not include, co-pays, deductibles, and percentage of cost of care. All together comes to a bunch more than 21% in income tax.

311 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:45pm

re: #305 Obdicut

See above. It is not another 21% from most folks bottom line. That is in no way accurate.

It is 21% minus the amount they pay in medicare/medicaid tax, minus the amount they pay for their health insurance, minus the amount they pay for health care.

So, it will in fact leave a lot of people better off than in the US system.

"Facts are stupid things."
-Ronald Reagan

312 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:01:58pm

Interesting thing, the only insurance that's remotely affordable at my (previously also WUB's) job...

$2500 deductible.

Which considering that most of our staff make ~10$ an hour and have families, instant doom.

313 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:02:04pm

re: #302 Rightwingconspirator

Pull another 21% from most folks bottom line and you'll get bankruptcies all right. Most of us do not pay nearly that much in premiums to insurers like blue cross. Say $50,000 in income is $875 a month in medical coverage. I can see that covering a family, but then ya gotta add 21% of the spousal income.

Anyone grossing $50,000 whether it's a single or a family can not afford $875 a month in health care premiums. Period. $50,000 after taxes would probably net about $3600 a month. $875 would take more than 20% of that.

314 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:02:05pm

re: #308 sattv4u2

All that alcohol consumption paid off, huh!

It's called preventive medicine, thank you!!

315 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:02:26pm

re: #298 sattv4u2

Your welcome. By WUBs standards, the fact that my wife and I own our our home, each have our own car, computer, cell phone and health/life insurance policies, no credit card debt and vote fiscon (not socon) somehow makes us evil is a hoot.

316 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:03:13pm

re: #315 Bubblehead II

Your welcome. By WUBs standards, the fact that my wife and I own our our home, each have our own car, computer, cell phone and health/life insurance policies, no credit card debt and vote fiscon (not socon) somehow makes us evil is a hoot.

Not only are you RICH, but you're FLAUNTING IT!!

317 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:03:50pm

re: #315 Bubblehead II

That's not actually WUB's position, though.

If you do vote for fiscal conservatives who are also socially conservative, you do vote socially conservative. I'm not sure if you were saying you refuse to vote for social conservatives.

318 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:04:04pm

re: #315 Bubblehead II

The thing is, if you spend all your time around the actually disadvantaged, or even the 'just barely making it, can't imagine owning a home' types, the sense of entitlement really can be galling.

319 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:05:32pm

re: #317 Obdicut

That's not actually WUB's position, though.

If you do vote for fiscal conservatives who are also socially conservative, you do vote socially conservative. I'm not sure if you were saying you refuse to vote for social conservatives.

Because the GOP is proudly anti-choice, anti-gay, and clearly NOT fiscally responsible nor even comes close to believing in "limited government" means I'll never have to worry about them pandering to me for my vote. It's an automatic "NO."

320 Achilles Tang  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:05:57pm

re: #257 researchok


And government controlled mandates will be more efficient?

Isn't that the argument that corporate USA uses whenever they come up with a "merger" or acquisition that will eliminate duplicated overheads?

321 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:06:55pm

Yes, the "European" system is more cost-effective, by far, and there are many nice things to say about it.

But get used to waiting lines - and politicians and economists deciding the level of care.

All in all, I probably prefer our Scandinavian way, but it is not without drawbacks.

322 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:07:28pm

re: #319 Kid A

But they say they're fiscally responsible! That should be enough >>

323 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:07:57pm

re: #321 harald

Yes, the "European" system is more cost-effective, by far, and there are many nice things to say about it.

But get used to waiting lines - and politicians and economists deciding the level of care.

All in all, I probably prefer our Scandinavian way, but it is not without drawbacks.

All those hot blond nurses are a distraction, huh!

324 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:08:02pm

re: #305 Obdicut

See above. It is not another 21% from most folks bottom line. That is in no way accurate.
It is 21% minus the amount they pay in medicare/medicaid tax, minus the amount they pay for their health insurance, minus the amount they pay for health care.
So, it will in fact leave a lot of people better off than in the US system.

I get that-One isno longer paying for the private insurance premiums and seeing medicare/medicaid deductions. That is still far short of 21% of income.

Do you agree with the NPR figure as how much it would take to do single payer?

325 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:08:08pm

re: #321 harald

But get used to waiting lines - and politicians and economists deciding the level of care.

We have both of those in the US already.

326 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:08:33pm

re: #323 sattv4u2

You bet your dirty ass.

327 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:09:05pm

re: #325 Obdicut

We have both of those in the US already.

Good. Synergy!

328 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:09:54pm

re: #324 Rightwingconspirator

I get that-One isno longer paying for the private insurance premiums and seeing medicare/medicaid deductions.

And not paying for the cost of the health care, either.

That is still far short of 21% of income.

I'm sorry, that is absolutely wrong. For many people, that will be far more than 21% of income. It entirely depends on what that level of income is. I have paid more than a quarter of my income before in private insurance-- that is more than 21% right there.

Do you agree with the NPR figure as how much it would take to do single payer?

I'm not sure what you mean. The NPR article doesn't say how much it would take to 'do' single payer in the US.

329 Kid Aghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:10:26pm

re: #322 windsagio

But they say they're fiscally responsible! That should be enough >>

Heh. They also say they believe in individual freedom. My ass.

330 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:12:37pm

re: #328 Obdicut

For young single parents with 1 or more kid, it can be substantially more than 21%.

Which, of course, is why so many of those people aren't actually insured at all.

331 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:14:07pm

re: #306 windsagio

read obdicuts post(s), he's done it at least twice now.

Working on it, lots of posts to read through. But notice no one engaged my #154. Only after I finally found some numbers (finally on a site I felt comfortable with linking) to spark that facet of the conversation. It's all pretty abstract until to approach a bottom line. Allegro indicates we now spend more than 21%. I suspect we spend less but pulling up good data is not all that easy to do in this case.

Much of the data is on advocacy sites. It's like gun rights-If you just go to Handgun control Inc and the NRA/ILA opposing web sites for data it's very unclear.

Since real data from friends I can ask or my own quotes from insurance companies are merely anecdotal that's no help.

So, tax bracket by tax bracket I am left with the question-How much will it cost?

332 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:16:38pm

re: #331 Rightwingconspirator

it depends totally on who you are.

The very poor, and even the moderately poor (if insured at all) spend a much much higher % of their income on insurance than the wealthier, and thats beyond medicare.

333 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:17:00pm

Well

I think this "RICH" guy will take his 14 year old, 175,000 mile car up to the corner Quick Trip and get his extravagant dinner

Two hot dogs for $2!!

RICH !!

334 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:17:25pm

I actually understood where Palin were coming from re "death panels" - or rather, I may have inserted some sense into her ravings, I don't know - I meet a lot of doctors who are frustrated about the demands for efficiency and cost-cutting when it comes to care-giving.

But that may be a load of shit too, because our system turns our doctors into mini-politicians who campaign for more subsidies to their departement.

Then again, it might be the same way in the US?

335 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:19:55pm

re: #328 Obdicut

And not paying for the cost of the health care, either.

I'm sorry, that is absolutely wrong. For many people, that will be far more than 21% of income. It entirely depends on what that level of income is. I have paid more than a quarter of my income before in private insurance-- that is more than 21% right there.

Yeah, I'm stuck trying to dig up how much this would cost. But since the CBO declined the challenge, and my quick goggle digging got me few solid numbers I'm stuck on guesswork.

I'm not sure what you mean. The NPR article doesn't say how much it would take to 'do' single payer in the US.

What I mean is the same 21% as they applied it in the article about France gonna get it done here? More maybe?

336 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:20:05pm

re: #317 Obdicut

That's not actually WUB's position, though.

If you do vote for fiscal conservatives who are also socially conservative, you do vote socially conservative. I'm not sure if you were saying you refuse to vote for social conservatives.

If they are YEC/ID/creationist/Pro-life nut jobs they don't get my vote regardless of how fiscally conservative they are.

337 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:20:18pm

re: #331 Rightwingconspirator

Allegro indicates we now spend more than 21%. I suspect we spend less but pulling up good data is not all that easy to do in this case.

Some people spend more than 21% of the salary, some spend more.

In addition, you're only talking about salary, which is not comparable to overall spending. In overall spending, France spends about half of what we do per person. That really does mean their system is cheaper and more efficient, unless you think per-capita income in France is 1/2 that of the US-- and it's not anywhere close to that.

338 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:22:24pm

re: #318 windsagio

Theirs or mine? Yes, we got ours. It took a lot of hard work and time. I am not ashamed of that.

339 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:22:48pm

re: #310 allegro

Look at the ENTIRE cost picture. That $875 is for insurance ONLY. It does not include what you and spouse are both paying for Medicare. It does not include, co-pays, deductibles, and percentage of cost of care. All together comes to a bunch more than 21% in income tax.

The estimates I have seen look pretty sketchy to me.

340 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:23:30pm

re: #335 Rightwingconspirator

What I mean is the same 21% as they applied it in the article about France gonna get it done here? More maybe?

I really don't know what you mean. You mean, instead of having our current system of paying medicare/medicaid tax, and paying for private insurance, and paying for health care, switch to a single-payer system?

Yes, I'm in favor of a single-payer system, like the French one, because it's more efficient and less costly.

What the actual percentage of tax necessary to make that system work depends on how we go about physician compensation and controlling costs.

341 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:24:57pm

And, sometimes I wonder: To what degree, if any, do we in Europe piggy-back on what you guys spend on healthcare, like the development of medical equipment, new medicine, research etc?

342 Only The Lurker Knows  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:25:47pm

bbiab and then moving upstairs to the new thread.

//ELITIST!

343 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:26:21pm

re: #341 harald

And, sometimes I wonder: To what degree, if any, do we in Europe piggy-back on what you guys spend on healthcare, like the development of medical equipment, new medicine, research etc?

Japan and Europe do tons of medical research, especially pharma. The medical research done in the US is a lot, but a significant proportion of that is from state schools and government labs.

344 windsagio  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:28:02pm

re: #338 Bubblehead II

That's so nice for them :p

I'm relatively young and very healthy, so I can skate on the cheapo insurance...

Its still hard to watch these people in these ugly situations, or to see people be glib about it.

Hard work isn't a guarantee of success, unfortunately.

You should never be in the place of saying 'we got ours'.

345 garhighway  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:30:44pm

re: #136 sattv4u2

But the ins company will have to abide by the laws of the state in which the client is covered

They can sell in multiple states now: you may have noticed that Aetna and UHS and Kaiser do that all the time. They want to choose their state regulator, so they can engage in a regulatory "race to the bottom", much like we see with merchant vessels who all seem to be flagged in Liberia and Panama.

346 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:31:18pm

re: #340 Obdicut

I really don't know what you mean. You mean, instead of having our current system of paying medicare/medicaid tax, and paying for private insurance, and paying for health care, switch to a single-payer system?
Yes, I'm in favor of a single-payer system, like the French one, because it's more efficient and less costly.

What the actual percentage of tax necessary to make that system work depends on how we go about physician compensation and controlling costs.


And how progressive we go with the new tax for medical coverage right? Free medical for the destitute and scale up through the brackets in a similar fashion to income tax. Or really hit the $250,000 & up people hard and take it easier on the low middle class.

Did you see the conclusion in the NPR piece?
France, like all countries, faces rising costs for health care. In a country that's so generous, it's even harder to get those expenses under control.

Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care.

Scale that $9 billion up to American instead of French population numbers and look out. Looks like the 21% NPR cited is inadequate. Has France not increased efficiency with this system? Or is it $9 billion in the hole after said efficiencies? I have a hunch income taxes are not the only place we will have to increase taxes to pay for this. Corporate and property taxes will have to chip in too, big time.

347 M. Dubious  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:32:09pm

re: #343 Obdicut

Ok, but where do they get the return on their reasearch investment? The US? The rest of the world?

I am scared that if you guys get good healthcare, it will be bad for me!

348 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:34:32pm

re: #347 harald

Ok, but where do they get the return on their reasearch investment? The US? The rest of the world?

I am scared that if you guys get good healthcare, it will be bad for me!

Sure,,, just think of yourself!!
//

349 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:36:12pm

re: #345 garhighway

iirc, they are run like separate companies, chartered in each state

i.e ,, United Health Care Of Massachusetts
United Health Care of Georgia
Unitted Health Care of ,,,, ect ect

350 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:44:35pm

re: #346 Rightwingconspirator

And how progressive we go with the new tax for medical coverage right? Free medical for the destitute and scale up through the brackets in a similar fashion to income tax. Or really hit the $250,000 & up people hard and take it easier on the low middle class.

Er, I wouldn't actually have a special tax for health care. So, yes, it'd be part of the general progressive income tax. I'm not sure what you're asking here.


Did you see the conclusion in the NPR piece?
France, like all countries, faces rising costs for health care. In a country that's so generous, it's even harder to get those expenses under control.

And yet, they're doing better than we are.

I'm really unsure what you're trying to argue, in general.

Do you get that per-capita health care spending in France is a little more than half what it is in the US?

351 sattv4u2  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 3:53:19pm

re: #346 Rightwingconspirator

btw ,, is that your photography on your link?

Breath taking

Thanks

and you've got mail (or soon will)

352 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 4:50:37pm

We will have health care reform in this country, even more comprehensive than PreviouslyRomneybutdontcallitthatanymorecallitobamacare where people like me and others can get health care. It will piss some people off, but that doesn't bother me. It has to be done and the people who don't like it will just have to suffer knowing more people have access to health care.

353 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 4:58:57pm

I always get to the party here late.

354 Ben G. Hazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 5:09:58pm

re: #75 reuven

Men *do* get breast cancer

[Link: www.cancer.org...]

There have been a number of incidents where men have been denied access to breast cancer screenings and clinics that have resulted in lawsuits. I'm trying to find a reference to some litigation, in the meantime there's this story:

[Link: articles.nydailynews.com...]

Yes, they do...breast cancer that metastasized into liver cancer is what killed my father last year, after a mastectomy, chemo, surgery on his liver, and more chemo.

All of those treatments gave him a few more years.

355 The Mongoose  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:00:49pm

I hate these studies that show how great Canada is on spending vs universal access. Come to Canada. Talk to us about health care and spending is actually NOT the first thing most of us will bring up.

Wait times. Wait times. WAIT. TIMES.

I live in a country where my dog can get an MRI in 6 hours and my grandmother has to wait 6 weeks. Think about it. People die waiting for care in Canada they could receive in days or hours in the US. The system cannot keep up with the unlimited demand for its "free" services.

And our prize at the end will be that it will bankrupt us. Health care already consumes nearly half of Ontario's budget, and it grows every year. Single-payer with no private involvement is not sustainable. Whatever the US goes with, Canadian health care is not the model you want.

356 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:02:56pm

Let's wait and see how things progress in Vermont with Green Mountain Care.

357 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:03:36pm

re: #355 The Mongoose

Any reason you're ignoring every other single-payer country on earth while screaming your doom?

358 The Mongoose  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:08:59pm

re: #357 Obdicut

Any reason you're ignoring every other single-payer country on earth while screaming your doom?


I'm not screaming, and I'm not mentioning other countries because I live in this one. I know places like Sweden have abandoned the Canadian model in favour of mixed private-public involvement but I'm in no position to speak to their experience. If someone from one of the other countries wishes to comment, I'll listen respectfully. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy?

359 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:09:27pm

re: #357 Obdicut

Any reason you're ignoring every other single-payer country on earth while screaming your doom?

It's the single-payer system he's experienced. It's a perfectly valid point to talk about his own experiences.

Canada's single-payer system is also one of the oldest.

Look at Taiwan. They've already got a doctor shortage and their system is less than 20 years old. It's also running a budget deficit, but the government cannot raise co-pay rates because they're afraid of being punished at the ballot box.

360 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:10:02pm

re: #358 The Mongoose

What the hell are you talking about?

We don't have to wait for people from other countries to check in to be able to comment. In addition, other Canadians have already spoken in the thread and said that they'll take the Canadian system over the US.

What courtesy do you want extended, exactly?

361 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:10:07pm

re: #355 The Mongoose

I hate these studies that show how great Canada is on spending vs universal access. Come to Canada. Talk to us about health care and spending is actually NOT the first thing most of us will bring up.

Wait times. Wait times. WAIT. TIMES.

I live in a country where my dog can get an MRI in 6 hours and my grandmother has to wait 6 weeks. Think about it. People die waiting for care in Canada they could receive in days or hours in the US. The system cannot keep up with the unlimited demand for its "free" services.

And our prize at the end will be that it will bankrupt us. Health care already consumes nearly half of Ontario's budget, and it grows every year. Single-payer with no private involvement is not sustainable. Whatever the US goes with, Canadian health care is not the model you want.

The reason your dog can get an MRI in 6 hours but not your grandmother is because our system values humans enough to get everyone to the MRI. Most dogs just end up dead because their owners can't afford the MRI and other medical care.

Bankrupt us? Did you not see that the US government spends more than we do? Their current system will bankrupt them well before us.

Stop listening to Gormley and Adler. They're idiots.

362 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:11:19pm

re: #358 The Mongoose

I'm not screaming, and I'm not mentioning other countries because I live in this one. I know places like Sweden have abandoned the Canadian model in favour of mixed private-public involvement but I'm in no position to speak to their experience. If someone from one of the other countries wishes to comment, I'll listen respectfully. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy?

You want respect? Then stop spouting right-wing talking points.

363 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:13:11pm

re: #360 Obdicut

In addition, other Canadians have already spoken in the thread and said that they'll take the Canadian system over the US.

I've seen both systems. U.S. > Canada.

364 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:14:58pm

re: #359 Max D. Reinhardt

It's the single-payer system he's experienced. It's a perfectly valid point to talk about his own experiences.

Works a little better when you realize your experiences are anecdotes and shouldn't extrapolated on as though they're data.


Canada's single-payer system is also one of the oldest.

Untrue, but fun to say, I guess. France's is older. Germany's is older. But for some reason, feel free to assert otherwise.


Look at Taiwan. They've already got a doctor shortage and their system is less than 20 years old. It's also running a budget deficit, but the government cannot raise co-pay rates because they're afraid of being punished at the ballot box.

365 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:15:29pm

re: #359 Max D. Reinhardt

It's the single-payer system he's experienced. It's a perfectly valid point to talk about his own experiences.

Canada's single-payer system is also one of the oldest.

Look at Taiwan. They've already got a doctor shortage and their system is less than 20 years old. It's also running a budget deficit, but the government cannot raise co-pay rates because they're afraid of being punished at the ballot box.

Doctor shortages are a result of other countries poaching the medical systems. Ultimately money talks and most doctors end up in the US. It's ironic that the US has the highest paid doctors, the highest medical costs per person and the largest segment of the population going bankrupt because of those medical costs.

366 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:15:58pm

re: #363 Max D. Reinhardt

I've seen both systems. U.S. > Canada.

That's nice.

367 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:19:15pm

re: #361 b_sharp

The reason your dog can get an MRI in 6 hours but not your grandmother is because our system values humans enough to get everyone to the MRI.

No it does not.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Let me elaborate. I have a family friend in Canada and he suffered an aortic anyeursm. The national healthcare service is refusing to treat him because it is not big enough. He cannot leave the island of Newfoundland to go on vacation without losing his care. He's suffering and the government will mot do anything about it.

No preventative medicine, just let it get worse and then we'll treat it.

368 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:21:35pm

re: #367 Max D. Reinhardt

And in the US, the exact same thing could happen, with a private insurance company refusing to cover the scenario.

What's your point?

369 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:23:06pm

re: #364 Obdicut

Untrue, but fun to say, I guess. France's is older. Germany's is older. But for some reason, feel free to assert otherwise.

Notice how I never said "the oldest."

370 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:25:26pm

re: #369 Max D. Reinhardt

Notice how I never said "the oldest."

But it's not among the oldest, even.

371 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:26:38pm

re: #367 Max D. Reinhardt

No it does not.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The provinces have agreements for cross border care. The idea he can't leave without losing health care is bs.

If the doctors aren't treating it then they must be comfortable he's in no danger.

If you want to have a battle of anecdotal stories, I've been in Canada for 55 years and have watched the system care for a lot of people.

Go find stats for the number of pets that die because care is unaffordable and compare it to the stats for people who die because care is unaffordable.

The 'dog' argument is ridiculous.

372 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:26:41pm

re: #368 Obdicut

And in the US, the exact same thing could happen, with a private insurance company refusing to cover the scenario.

What's your point?

In a single-payer system, the government is the arbiter. If it says no, then, well, that's it.

You are right thar our system isn't much better. You just get whatever insurance policy your employer allows you to get. No choice, no competition.

And don't get me started on our disastrous individual insurance "market."

373 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:27:33pm

re: #372 Max D. Reinhardt

In a single-payer system, the government is the arbiter. If it says no, then, well, that's it.

You are right thar our system isn't much better. You just get whatever insurance policy your employer allows you to get. No choice, no competition.

And don't get me started on our disastrous individual insurance "market."

When does the gov't say no in Canada?

374 Obdicut  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:28:47pm

re: #372 Max D. Reinhardt

In a single-payer system, the government is the arbiter. If it says no, then, well, that's it.

Yep. And in a non single-payer, if your insurance says no, that's it.

You are right thar our system isn't much better. You just get whatever insurance policy your employer allows you to get. No choice, no competition.

Competition isn't viable in health insurance, it's a naturally broken market. The best group of customers are the ones who don't need the service, and they're identifiable-- they're the ones who aren't sick.

And don't get me started on our disastrous individual insurance "market."

If what you think is more competition would help, then you're nuts.

375 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:29:23pm

re: #371 b_sharp

The provinces have agreements for cross border care. The idea he can't leave without losing health care is bs.

His vacation was in Arizona. If he left Canada then he'd lose his coverage.

376 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:33:30pm

re: #373 b_sharp

When does the gov't say no in Canada?

See above. No surgery. Let the anyeursm get bigger. He's got the money to go to the US but he won't. He's paid taxes so he feels like he has already paid.

377 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:35:04pm

re: #375 Max D. Reinhardt

His vacation was in Arizona. If he left Canada then he'd lose his coverage.

And that's a problem with Canada's system?

If he has the money, then he can get the work done in the US. Sounds like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

378 b_snark  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:36:55pm

re: #376 Max D. Reinhardt

See above. No surgery. Let the anyeursm get bigger. He's got the money to go to the US but he won't. He's paid taxes so he feels like he has already paid.

The gov't didn't make the call, the doctors did. What exactly did the doctors say? How much danger was this guy really in? Did he even know?

379 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:47:25pm

re: #377 b_sharp

And that's a problem with Canada's system?

If he has the money, then he can get the work done in the US. Sounds like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Heh. The Canadian government has already forcibly confiscated his wealth (my words not his) and he expects to get the services that the government promised him. He could go to the US and be treated instantly but he's a Canadian patriot. He paid his taxes, helped the poor get access to healthcare, but somehow wanting proper treatment is asking too much.

380 Max  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 8:49:59pm

re: #378 b_sharp

The gov't didn't make the call, the doctors did. What exactly did the doctors say? How much danger was this guy really in? Did he even know?

I wasn't in the room with him and the doctors. I don't know what they said.

He's in constant pain. He couldn't even help maintain the house last winter.

381 Interesting Times in Benghazi  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 9:03:47pm

re: #380 Max D. Reinhardt

I wasn't in the room with him and the doctors. I don't know what they said.

He's in constant pain. He couldn't even help maintain the house last winter.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

An abdominal aortic aneurysm is not treated surgically (which I assume you mean by treatment) until it is over 4cm in size. That is the case in Canada, the US, and anywhere in the Western world. It has nothing to do with government vs. private health insurance at all. Evidence-based medicine shows that AAAs are best managed medically (ie. blood pressure meds and the like) until they expand over 4cm, because under that size, the risks of surgery are much greater than the risk of the thing rupturing.

If your friend were in the US and was lucky enough to have good private health insurance, the result would be the same - his insurance wouldn't pay for a surgical repair because it wouldn't be medically indicated. And that's even assuming he could convince a vascular surgeon to do it.

In short, doctors won't 'fix' his aneurysm because the research says they shouldn't, not because the big bad government won't let them.

382 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 10:48:03pm

re: #379 Max D. Reinhardt

"He paid his taxes, helped the poor get access to health care, but somehow wanting proper treatment is asking too much."

And the poor payed taxes and helped him get medical care through his life. What do you want? For us to do nothing? Or some ridiculous cockamamie idea? Something needs to be done. It isn't just poor people who can't afford to get cancer. It is middle class people, it is my brothers and sisters and nieces and so on. That sounds so condescending of you "he helped the poor get health care" that sounds quite frankly, horrible. So what, so he helped the poor get health care paying taxes, you don't think a richer guy than him has payed more taxes then him and helped someone in his family get expensive medical care they wouldn't other wise have gotten? If a middle class person gets fired or layed off and his wife gets cancer, or she develops some kind of bone disease on the feet you don't want to have to care, fine. Don't care but some do. You can tell your Canadian friend story forever. It won't stop people wanting a compassionate change in health care.

383 laZardo  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 11:13:39pm

I'd definitely support a compassionate change in healthcare, but apologies for sounding like a TPer if I could at least get these questions off my chest.

1. Who will determine what will be "covered?"
2. Will private hospitals be allowed or would they all fall under the public umbrella (e.g. UK NHS?)
3. How will abuse be prevented?
4. How will single-payer health care promote better health?

Yeah. Just want to get that out there. Where I live, the regional "role model" for health care is Singapore.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 102 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 267 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1