Of course not - those are the best estimates of the CBO. Umm... You're all for providing health care, but you've already decided the proposal that doesn't have details is horrible? I'm not sure you understand the basics of the idea of the government's involvement in health care...
I think there is also a big difference between a relatively health 80 year old and one that needs constant medical attention. Again, this is just from a friend, a lot of the baby boomers who grew up on bacon and eggs for breakfast now are having all kinds of cardiovascular issues. With powerful drugs and new technology, they are able to be treated, but at a huge cost.
Along with this debunking of the malpractice claim, the other argument people advance against regulating healthcare is usually something along the lines of "you'll have to wait forever and the care will get worse." This claim is wholly unsubstantiated. There are wait times in countries with socialized medicine, of course, but again - those countries are by-and-large healthier than our country, and they have longer life expectancies. Also, who's to say that a system of socialized healthcare in the U.S. would suffer from these same problems? We have a world full of nations with socialized healthcare, so why can't we learn from their mistakes? They've already done all the experimenting for us - a smart man learns from his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from the smart man. While people argue about the U.S. having the best healthcare system in the world (it doesn't), they seem unwilling to consider the possibility that the U.S. could also have the best socialized healthcare system in the world. The implication is that the best healthcare system is created in an alleged "free market." So we're back to what this issue is really about to those who oppose socialized healthcare. Again - there's no indication that the care would get any worse. For one thing, current medical knowledge is not going to suddenly take a huge leap backward simply because more people can access it. The Free-marketeers are usually the ones who take issue with this, but the so-called free market is the source of the majority of the problems with the cost of healthcare. People need pills, appointments, doctor's visits to stay alive - and the bureaucrats and the CEOs know that, so they charge us as much as they think they can get away with. It has little to do with covering operating costs, and everything to do with generating a big fat profit from people who have no other option but to pay or to let the Federal government pay.
The government is proposing a health care insurance program for people who cannot get insurance. Therefore, what stops companies from no longer offering health insurance when they know that their employees can get coverage through the government program? Also, as far as studies go, other estimates place the tab closer to 9 trillion. My point is that the US government has historically been wrong when it comes to what large programs or agendas actually cost. They like to throw out best case scenarios and "if everything goes perfectly" when in reality it is a lot more expensive than their hurried studies suggest. In this case, it could be crippling (see stimulus, bailout or Iraq War). On top of that, if it does indeed pass, then the gov't will pay their hugely discounted rates which can potentially drive hospitals and practices out of business. To me, this has nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with rushing into something that can be fiscally devestating
So we should continue down the current course and everything will be fine and dandy. Medical cost one of the biggest reason why many US industries are at a disadvantage when competing with foreign countries that have nationalized health care. We can wait another twenty years and see where we are then (where medical cost is more than 40% of GDP).
Did I say the system is perfect? No, I didn't Did I say that I think something needs to be done? Yes, I did Do I think this ill-planned bill is the solution? Hell no Here's another clue about how clueless the federal government is...they want to eliminate health care brokerages because they get a 4% commission on premiums. They say it will "save 4%". What they fail to realize is that health care brokers actually make the insurance carriers compete with one another to LOWER premiums every year. It's like giving the fox the keys to the henhouse.
Can heath care costs be reduced in the US? Of course they can! Canada spends 1/3 less as a percentage of GDP than the US does, and the Canadian system covers all Canadian citizens, for example. The question for the US is, how long can you continue to waste so much money on a system that’s this wasteful and 50 years out of date? And this doesn’t factor in the hidden costs either. How much does a lack of adequate healthcare affect productivity? How many personal bankruptcies are caused by health care expenses? Etc. There’s no question that the US can reduce costs. There isn’t a single OECD country that spends anywhere close to as much on health care as the US does. There's nowhere to go but up for the US. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf
I agree. However, you have to also factor in the amount of people that we have that need health care (compared to say, Germany or even Canada). It's easier to provide health care for 20 million people than it is for 300 million...many of whom are over 50 years old But yeah, something needs to be done
Presumably people could buy coverage from a private provider, couldn’t they? Getting companies out of the business of providing health care plans would be a good thing, right? Health care is not their business after all. I suspect this is one of the levels of bureaucracy that adds to the waste in the US system. I’m confused by this. The US health care system is enormously wasteful. Have a quick look at the graphs in my previous post. One of the key reasons to reform your system is to cut out the waste and save money, and huge amounts of money at that. There are literally a couple of dozen systems currently being run by other countries, some that have been operating for 50 years and longer, so there are lots of examples and lots of long term data on what works and what doesn’t.
Canada health care sucks. You will wait forever to see the Dr. you need. I guess you might be used to it, or it doesn't bother YOU, but it will bother me. I prefer to have choices in health care. If Aetna starts to suck, or screws me over, they lose my business.
I think the economies of scale could help you. When you have a population that's as spread out as Canada's is you end up having to provide more facilities, and more air ambulance services and long ambulance rides, etc. I think you also have an opportunity deal with the end of life issues in a different way. Our hands are tied to a significant extent at this point. For example, the US government run system would presumably be a basic needs, no frills, system, and anything additional could be picked up by the private insurers. I think it would makes sense for such a system to put strict limits on the kid of care that will be provided after about the age of 75, and to encourage individuals to buy private insurance to cover the rest. That would give people many years to consider and plan how they want to handle their last years. If they want to go to great lengthens to extend their lives as long as possible they can, but they have to pay for that choice.
It's always funny how people say that another country's health care sucks when you have probably never experienced their health care at all. How easy it is to regurgitate the same bull**** propaganda fed to the masses.
stories are worthless. Wait times are easy to find out. Like I said if you are fine with waiting months to see a specialist that is great for you.
The reason why private health care is affordable is because most employers pay the majority of the premiums, usually charging a minority percentage to the employee. Ask a self-employed person how affordable health care is
Which is a major reason US companies are often not competitive with foreign counterparts. For example, the core of McCain's health plan was to stop subsidizing employer-based insurance in order to get them out of the health insurance business and encourage people to get individual plans. Beyond that, employer insurance sucks if/when you lose your job or change jobs. If you have an individual plan, you keep it. If you have an employer plan, you're suddenly without insurance, and if you were already sick, you now have pre-existing condition problems in getting new insurance. Getting employers out of the health care business lets them pay employees that money - but it only works if individuals can get health insurance on their own (a major problem right now).
