So, "free universal" health care is good?

[jspande]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

Less government usually ends in improvement. More government usually ends in things going down hill. Do you really want the idiots of the Cash for Clunkers to be in charge of your personal healthcare. Not me.

Cash for Clunkers has been so much more of a success than anticipated - that's it's "problem. But the same people who complained the rest of the Economic Stimulus is not getting out there fast enough are now complaining that this stimulus is getting out too fast. Go figure.

But when will people learn that it's not more versus less government that matters, it's good government verus bad government. And when has our government screwed up as bad as the (private sector) Investment Banking industry?

[hondo122]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

Before demanding an apology, you should check up on what our dear leader is saying and watch the video at the link below of an actual case proving what is already happening in the state of OR.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/0...icide-instead/

Rationing will be commonplace as it is in the UK. 39% is the top bracket, not 36%. Most of us are in this bracket. Oboma is talking about doing it for all healthare plans. How else will he be able to insure an additional 47 million folks and reduce costs as he states? Surely nobody believes the government effeciencies line.

Lindsay the top rate is 35% on income over 357K, when are you buying a Prevost, per this link for 2009(» 2009 Federal Income Tax Brackets (Official IRS Tax Rates))

[Ecker]

Originally Posted by Superslif

Has anyone brought up "medical cost". Being 46 years old, last year was the first time I ever went to the emergency room. I cut my finger so so, I just wanted to wrap it up, no big deal. My wife suggested I go have it checked out. Saw the Dr. maybe 30 seconds, he just instructed the nurse to put some sort of "glue" stuff on it. No stitches.... $1700.....Unbelieveable. Neighbor went in last week for 4 days for testing for a possible pacemaker, Bill $40,000.... My insurance picked most of the $1700 up.

But, my problem is when and if I retire I'm going to have to pay $500 a month for a 80/20 plan. One major hospital stay $100K+ I'm SOL..... Our saying at work is the new retirement plan is "Death".....

Given the uncertainties that existed in Medicare even before this latest law making effort , it is not possible to be definitive about any future scenario. So, dealing with present it is not wise to use an ER unless the problem apears very serious. A doctor office or 24hr outpatient clinic is preferable. ER's by their very design involve high capital investment and fixed costs to be able to handle very serious problems. In addition, ER's must maintain a 24 hr on duty (not on call) staff of a wide range of medical specialists whether needed or not in order to maintain a Level 1 rating. ( Our local hospital lost its Level 1 rating this year because we eliminated a speciality that never got called on. We gained on the elimination of salary but lost some income since Paramedics no longer can bring serious cases to us even though we have one of the highest ratings in US for our hospital when measured on very objective criteria by national agencies) Moreover, non-insured people (there is no one who does not have access to medical treatment in US by law) must be treated under the law and is done in Er's so it costs millions of dollars each year for every hospital to cover that treatment and some portion of it is placed on every hospital/ER bill, which is offset to a slight degree by donations. Bottom line ER's are very expensive and should be avoided if not really necessary.

With regard to 80/20, etc. Your young enough that you should consider securing NOW a Long Term Care policy; the costs for such policy will increase every year that you wait and it can be very helpful in retirement. They are designed differently but the essence they will pay daily costs of confinement if necessary for a period of years. As to medical per se; the existing Medicare comes in three flavors part A/B/D. part A pays hospital bills 100% after an initial deductible of ~$700 or so. Part B pays doctor visits 80/20 after a yearly deductible of ~$100 or so. Part D pays prescription costs and is a little more difficult to explain.

So, what can one do to cover the 20 portion or deductibles. One can buy coverage for that portion of bill. This insurance is not cheap maybe ~$2000/year. If one is in good health you might consider self insuring until more infirmaries develop and make it advisable to insure. Also, one may have company provide retirement health insurance and it often has a yearly deductible that will pay the 20% portion of the Medicare once the deductible is met. Finally, one good option is to buy a catastropic coverage i.e. coverage that only kicks in when a very large hospital bill is incurred. the cost is generally low since it is a rare event coverage.

[Lindsay Richards]

DO you not realize that the "clunkers" that we buy must be taken out and destroyed. How in the Sam Hill can anybody think grinding up 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money is a good idea? It is bad government at it's worst.

Hondo, you forget that the Dear Leader is letting the Bush taxcuts expire in 2010. Once again, you have got to think things thru.

[hondo122]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

DO you not realize that the "clunkers" that we buy must be taken out and destroyed. How in the Sam Hill can anybody think grinding up 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money is a good idea? It is bad government at it's worst.

Hondo, you forget that the Dear Leader is letting the Bush taxcuts expire in 2010. Once again, you have got to think things thru.

true on that point Lindsay, I don't think Free Universal is the answer, but means testing may be

[Ecker]

Originally Posted by jspande

First of all, I never said anything like "...doomsday if we don't change our current system to universal single payer format". I have so far never even indicated a preference for single payer, much less claimed it was the only system that would avoid "doomsday".

I said, and virtually every expert agrees, that the cost growth curve of our system is unsustainable and unless we fix it to ("bend the curve") it will bankrupt our nation. And I stand by the opinion that universal coverage in some form is an essential first step in gaining control of costs (otherwise we just play "Whack-a-mole").

While I do not propose a Canada-style system and therefore shouldn't be put in a position of defending it, I believe you do our friends to the north a great insult. After all, polls show Canadians prefer their system to ours overwhelmingly. If it's even remotely as bad as you, and others, say, they'd have to be pretty stupid or even insane, right?

There was an interesting study (by the US Dept of Health as I recall) reported in the media about a year ago, that found that the average wait time in the Emergency Room was far greater in the USA than in Canada, but wait times were greater in Canada for elective procedures. The point is, it's easy to pick and choose your favorite statistic.

I believe most experts have agreed with Obama's statement that in the USA we pay much more for a system where we live sicker and die younger than in other industrialized nations. We need to improve it.

A) I wasn't referring to your comments at all in the doomsday sentence but rather the way the rethoric is being played out in the media by Obama and his associates. He repeatedly has said if nothing is done there will be no recovery (although he is saying today saying its started); small businesses will fail, our industries will die, etc. A doomsday scenario I do believe.

B) We have 150,000 Canadians come down to our area each winter to play. I haven't talked to them by any means all but a large cross section that I have had conversations with (some are my neighbors for the CA legal ~6 months of year) think its got a lot of major problems while positive only on the so-called free part which they say with a sort of smirk on thier face.

C) Death statistics have nothing to due with health per se. I think you'll find our death numbers are heavily weighted to losses of minorities/youth to gang related deaths, etc. Our medical system is the preferred choice of the worlds leaders when they get into serious health issues and of course our friends from Canada come over the border to receive care unavailable there; some are even sent by the governmernt since they are unable to provide service in some cases.

[Lindsay Richards]

but means testing may be

Means testing is where people who have made more and paid more into the system through out their lives end up saving more for retirement and end up getting less from the system. Nothing could be more unAmerican. Pay more in and get less out. Just like Cuba and Russia.

[Jim Stewart]

Here's the main problem and it is NOT SOLVABLE!

To have everyone provided with health care either single payer or by insurance has proven to cost a tax rate of 50% or greater (proven fact, not disputable).

Our economy is primarily based on individual consumption (approximately 80%, proven fact, not disputable).

The problem that has resulted from our current recession or depression that has fueled the spiral, is lack of consumption. Less consumption begets fewer jobs, begets less consumption begets fewer jobs, and so on and so on.

Increase everyones tax bill to create a 50% average and there is a huge chunk taken out of disposable income for consumption. No consumption, no economy.

The problem can not be solved by providing insurance for everyone that is subsidized by increased tax dollars, just will not work!

In every business I either ran or owned, I cut expenses when revenues were down, when revenues increased and times got better, I found I did not really have to increase my expenses that much. This country should be run as a business with a Profit and Loss Statement, because that's what it is a business. The business is called government and they run a very, very, very, very, very poor business!

[hondo122]

This is turning into a very informative thread. Keep up the good work guys.

[jspande]

Originally Posted by Ecker

A) I wasn't referring to your comments at all in the doomsday sentence but rather the way the rethoric is being played out in the media by Obama and his associates. He repeatedly has said if nothing is done there will be no recovery (although he is saying today saying its started); small businesses will fail, our industries will die, etc. A doomsday scenario I do believe.

In fairness it should be pointed out that Obama has also not claimed single payer was the way to avoid doomsday. In fact he has rejected single payer (and any sort of socialized medicine), to the disappointment of many of his supporters.

Perhaps the choice of the word "doomsday" was unfortunate, but I've always thought the phrase referred to unfounded doomsday warnnings, such as the "euthanasia" one Jim discussed. I'm rminded of the saying that "it's not paranoia if there really is someone out to get you".

But I think it's to Obama's credit that he has been upfront about the whole economy/deficit issue. He's been very clear that once the recovery is secure, we have to rein in the deficit which is caused by the accumulation of, yes, his Stimulus bill, the Bush tax cuts, war in Iraq and the health care issue. I think those warnings are totally accurate, whether they're called doomsday or anything else.

But who was it that said - If Obama were to walk on water, the conservatives would point and say "Look, he can't even swim!".

[Lindsay Richards]

For those who say Obama never said he wasn't for single payer watch this.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/0...f-the-day-544/

[Jim Stewart]

President Obama, similar if not exactly like all other politicians, is in favor of what ever is in favor!

The Obama Administration has to cater to the Moderates or Centrists within their party to be able to accomplish their objectives. If the Administration did not need the Moderates or Centrists in their party, we would only be hearing about a single payer system.

Even Liberals want to get re-elected. So now let's get to the root of the problem, term limits. No one should be allowed to serve in the House, Senate or White House for more than 4 years. No lifelong pension, no career politicians, only Public Servants for the good of the Public.

And in closing, I am the worlds largest supporter of the Republican Party and yet I am a Centrist. A Centrist in the Republican party is a rarity. As it did when Liberals referred to President Bush as Mr. Bush or Dub ya, it angers me when my chosen parties Moderates or Conservatives refer to President Obama as Mr. Obama or plain Obama. It is disrespectful to the office and to the man. Anyone who is elected to the Presidency of the United States earns your respect whether you agree or disagree with his opinions or politics. He does not need to earn our respect, he has earned our respect by being elected, period! It is time to get out of the gutter with the Liberals and be professional!

Jim Stewart

[Rick&Cheryl]

Originally Posted by jspande

Jim, thanks for the insightful post. I was actually thinking of that same issue as well, but couldn't come up with a good way to say it.

I've been trying to add insight to this issue by posting points which I felt have been overlooked in the national debate, and here's one more stab at making my original point. The current system is unsustainable and will bankrupt our nation if it's not fixed. The first step has to be universal coverage, otherwise any attempts at cost control become a hopeless game of "Whack-a-mole", for example, the uninsured avoiding the cost of Doctor visits and ending in the much more expensive Emergency Room.

I would disagree that universal coverage HAS to be the first step. I'd much rather the Feds being to address the fraudulent, inefficiency, and waste in our current system first. If they can make our current system, Medicare/Medicaid, then I think more would support universal coverage and it would certainly be cheaper. But adding universal coverage now, will only create more waste, fraud, and inefficency, and we simply cant afford that much increase right now.

[SeeTheUSA]

Okay --- we all agree this health care thing is way complicated.

Perhaps we should instead discuss why all four of my grandchildren, ages 2, 4, 4, and 7, effectively have car payments. Coupons books for the loans to arrive when they're old enough to pay taxes . . . from the IRS!

Your grandkids, too . . .

Maybe our leaders can chunk in yet another couple of billion bucks and burden even more future taxpayers.