Much better post - now you're actually making points, and that's a good article. I would suggest there are at least three major problems here, though: 1. This suggests that in 1970, the cost of medical care for the elderly ($368) was no different than the cost for everyone else ($364). That's nonsense - the elderly will always cost more than the population as a whole. Either that, or Medicare was far more efficient in 1970, suggesting that the idea that gov't can't be more efficient than the private sector is not valid. 2. Medicare will get more costly over time because we have longer lifespans today and end-of-life care options today. As the Medicare average age increases, so will cost, for the same reason as #1. None of this suggests inefficiency - just demographics. I would be curious to see what private insurance charges for a 75 yr old to have insurance - I would guess it's higher than Medicare, if they would even be eligible. 3. This doesn't account for all the people that simply are uninsured now. Part of the way the private sector keeps costs down is simply by not insuring the least-profitable/most expensive people. That's again not an efficiency thing, unless you believe that health insurance should only be available to the heathy.
That isn't even the point. If I were still self-employed and struggling to keep my business afloat, I would have gladly traded in my nothing for a government subsidized plan. Of course there would have been three of us since I employed a couple of people and the profits were not there for health insurance. It is much more efficient that I decided to close my practice and work for another firm since those people no longer have a job, right? Right? As others have stated, you are clueless since you do not realize that I do not even qualify for Medicaid. I would tell you to save your posting for some topic you fully understand...I am not completely sure that you'd ever post again.
We can see how how the state has crept in more and more when wanted to eliminate smoking for example (to save people from themselves of course). This is where we are headed. Universal healthcare and the waistline police Sedalia, Colo. - Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines. Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles. Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. This is a blatant infringement of egg sellers' rights to advertise their products. In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses. Of course healthy diet and exercise are good. But these are issues of personal – not government – responsibility. So long as they don't harm others, adults should have the right to eat and drink what they wish – and the corresponding responsibility to enjoy (or suffer) the consequences of their choices. Anyone who makes poor lifestyle choices should pay the price himself or rely on voluntary charity, not demand that the government pay for his choices. Government attempts to regulate individual lifestyles are based on the claim that they must limit medical costs that would otherwise be a burden on "society." But this issue can arise only in "universal healthcare" systems where taxpayers must pay for everyone's medical expenses. Although American healthcare is only under partial government control in the form of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, American nanny state regulations have exploded in recent years. Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a "zero tolerance" ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy. These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare. Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare. Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society. The American Founding Fathers who fought and died for our freedoms would be appalled to know their descendants were allowing the government to dictate what they could eat and drink. The Founders correctly understood that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave men free to live – not tell us how many eggs we should eat. If we still value our freedoms, we must reject both the nanny state and universal healthcare. Otherwise, it won't be long before the "Waistline Police" come knocking on our doors. • Paul Hsieh practices medicine in the south Denver metro area and is a cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). link
The government tells you that you can't take crack. It tells you can't drink and drive. It makes all kinds of checks before you fly. Obesity can lead to heart disease which kills more people than any of the above reasons so why shouldn't the government tell you to be healthy.
There is a world of difference between mandating that people cannot smoke crack and mandating that they cannot order a pizza.
If you work your entire life and decide to retire at 60 (which is everybody's dream, right?), then you will be uninsured until you hit SS age unless you can afford to pay for it yourself. Not many people can pay for their own insurance at age 60 given the pre-existing clauses. Also, by age 60 many people are not disabled but just aren't well enough for work. These people are screwed. How do I know this? My mother fell in this trap. She worked her whole life and made a bad decision to get out of the corporate rat race. She did side jobs and lower paying jobs ...with less insurance coverage. When her health went down hill, she couldn't hold onto a job. Perhaps this gap is the BIGGEST hole in our health care system. Many 60 y/o's cannot/do not work ...and they get screwed. You will be in that age bracket one day. How many of you reading this will get screwed too.
If you believe that pizza is as deleterious as crack cocaine, then you are delusional. Len Bias died as a result of his first use of crack. Please point out the number of people that died as a result of their first slice of pizza. Please point out the number of "pizza babies" that are in hospital wards. Please point out the number of homeless that are just looking for their next pizza fix. Give me a break. It isn't even close to being the same thing, and any sane person would be able to see that.
Good article. link The "pity party" above from the insurance lobby drives me nuts. Yes, it will be rough for your "industry" (derison implied) - that's the point! Your prices are overinflated and your product is crap. The wankers complaining about "choice" just don't have a ****ing clue what they're talking about.
Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p-bY92mcOdk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p-bY92mcOdk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Let's say for the sake of argument that Obama and other progressives are trying to include a public option so that it will eventually lead to a single payer system in America. How and why do you think that transition would occur? Wouldn't that only happen if the public option was successful and was deemed to be a positive thing for America? So if that's the case, then why is this a bad thing? If the public option doesn't work well or exposes itself as bad for America, then it won't turn into a single payer system, right? There's no lying or deception going on here. Obama has stated that he thinks a single-payer system is best for America, but that it is not possible politically. So instead he's going to try to make changes that benefit America and that can be done in today's political climate, and if they work they might lead to future changes that are even better for us. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
you are wasting your time, Faos is a "one video and run" type poster - I don't think i've ever seen him have a logical conversation about a complex topic here, he claims it to be "not worth his time" - though I question that, and suspect he's simply not capable of it.
in he's defense, he's more than that - apparently he's also a "one photoshop and run" type poster http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=4692032
To be honest, I don't post anything on here (or any other forum I frequent) with the expectation of getting a logical conversation. The rare occasion that happens is worth noting more than when it doesn't. Still, that doesn't prevent me from putting an opinion or question out there anyway.
Here we go again Sam "NO facts under my statements" Fisher.. When was the last time you actually gave me A LOGICAL conversation with actual proof yourself? You're in every single post that I have posted on here talking but, NEVER EVER give out a single point. DON'T YOU ever go out point fingers saying "one video and run" when you indeed sir have no arguments what so ever. If I'm not mistaken you're the same way always post a ignorant post saying that you disagree or just to bash the person expressing their OPINION. BUT, tell me sir what are YOUR OPINIONS for this Health Care disaster? How should this system work? and WHY?
Look, I agree that something needs to be done and that medical costs are out of control, but I don't think this proposal is anywhere near the solution. And BTW, Medicare and Medicaid don't even cover hospital's/doctor's fixed expenses (and that's excluding salaries). Doctors and hospitals lose money on every government insured patient. If you insure the majority of the population and pay these "negotiated rates" to health care providers, people will no longer want to practice medicine here. $150-$200K of student loans, 8-12 years of med school/residencies/fellowships and working 60-80 hour weeks while a resident (and making crap money)...why would someone go through all of this just to make a wage you can earn with an undergrad degree?
Please read: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=4274949&highlight=health+care#post4274949 I think a single payer system is a good goal, however.
