"Affordable" health care advocates explain this please.

stockingfull wrote:Mike, that's just another example of you stating "facts" you have absolutely no way to know.

edit: I was responding to the last sentence of your post, formerly the only sentence.

You don't have the choice of taking it out of context, Jon. The event will be exclusive: Government in competition with private enterprise. It's not a fair playing field. Government will win. You will only have monopoly Therefore you won't know if competition will be beneficial. The reason I say you don't care is that if you did, you would look for a competitive solution.

So, where are your facts that government enterprise works? The post office model? The Social Security Model? The Freddy and Fannie model?

It's really just another example of your verbal bullying.

Mike, IF your thesis comes true, it's merely proof that the HMO's have been gouging us for nearly a generation. They flat broke the system, it's gotten worse and worse, and that's the only reason their time will have come to an end.

OTOH, if the "public option" (something like buying into Medicare, if I understand it correctly) doesn't work out, the insurance industry will always be able to come in and offer alternatives. What the hell more do you freepers want?

Funny how you were OK with all the hospital-crushing and patient-screwing, so long as it was being done by the insurance boyz.

stockingfull wrote:Mike, IF your thesis comes true, it's merely proof that the HMO's have been gouging us for nearly a generation. They flat broke the system, it's gotten worse and worse, and that's the only reason their time will have come to an end.

OTOH, if the "public option" (something like buying into Medicare, if I understand it correctly) doesn't work out, the insurance industry will always be able to come in and offer alternatives. What the hell more do you freepers want?

Funny how you were OK with all the hospital-crushing and patient-screwing, so long as it was being done by the insurance boyz.

If you're so concerned about the insurance "boyz", then why not advocate for going back to the pre 1973 model and let doctors run their businesses as they see fit?

Too much like "free market" for you? Doesn't come from the government so therefore it can't be any good maybe?

stockingfull wrote:Mike, IF your thesis comes true, it's merely proof that the HMO's have been gouging us for nearly a generation. They flat broke the system, it's gotten worse and worse, and that's the only reason their time will have come to an end.

OTOH, if the "public option" (something like buying into Medicare, if I understand it correctly) doesn't work out, the insurance industry will always be able to come in and offer alternatives. What the hell more do you freepers want?

Funny how you were OK with all the hospital-crushing and patient-screwing, so long as it was being done by the insurance boyz.

The system isn't broke, it's just expensive. That's your subterfuge argument. You just want a cadillac system for everyone and the free market with all its high tech research cannot provide one that's affordable. Thus, you really want to seize the property of the wealthy to pay for the services of the poor.

Just say what it is.

I don't want to go back to the pre-HMO days because people didn't get preventative care back then.

And preventative care is no "Cadillac system," it's nothing more than the basic, immutable logic of the Fram filter guy: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It may not be 1/16 of the cost but there's no doubt that it's the key to fixing the system. Managing people's health minimizes the obscene expense of acute illness.

Of all the debates we have here, this one's the easiest. HMO's have proved that preventative care is the way to keep the population healthy -- and to do so economically. And we see that proven over and over in every population that's monitored, from HMO patients to executives to astronauts.

stockingfull wrote:OTOH, if the "public option" (something like buying into Medicare, if I understand it correctly) doesn't work out, the insurance industry will always be able to come in and offer alternatives. What the hell more do you freepers want?

Good luck getting the jeannie back in it's bottle. This entitlement will go on forever unhampered much as SSN and Medicare/Medicare continue to do; or the Farm subsidy program. No, you need to take a closer look at the failure of government programs over the years. Socialism has never worked and never will. It's against human nature. It strips you of your personal choice and steals your liberty. They have proven themselves to be ineffective and a waste of money. There have been an increasing amount of articles on the internet about the failure of Britain's and Canadian's heath systems. It seems like not a day goes by without a story of some foreign national seeking medical care in the US. Look at the Member of the Canadian Parliament who was instrumental in passing their health plan in the first place. When she couldn’t get care for her breast cancer in Canadian in a timely manner she came here. That’s documentable. I invite you to start there.

What do I want? – I want the government to get and stay the hell out of my life. The US Constitution makes the federal government the safety net, not the first place to look for help. Why anyone would invite them in is beyond me but I don’t need some else to micromanage my life. There is no evidence that they can do a better job while there is abundant evidence they will screw it up – again. Lisa

Lisa, unless you reject all insurance, your anti-gov't argument makes no sense.

Insurance companies collect money from everybody they insure, pool whatever the "risk" is and then make decisions about who gets the money, and when.

What's the diff between that and "private gov't"?

stockingfull wrote:I don't want to go back to the pre-HMO days because people didn't get preventative care back then.

And preventative care is no "Cadillac system," it's nothing more than the basic, immutable logic of the Fram filter guy: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It may not be 1/16 of the cost but there's no doubt that it's the key to fixing the system. Managing people's health minimizes the obscene expense of acute illness.

Of all the debates we have here, this one's the easiest. HMO's have proved that preventative care is the way to keep the population healthy -- and to do so economically. And we see that proven over and over in every population that's monitored, from HMO patients to executives to astronauts.

Geez that's funny because I have all my pediatric records from pre 1973 and it seems like I went to the doctor pretty often. I don't remember anyone stopping us from going to the doctor. I even had my tonsils out by 1975 or so. Which required hospitalization and a multiple day stay. That was right around the time my father was finishing building the house I live in today and the start of my parents divorce which required lots of expensive lawyers.

I've heard him talk about a lot of things but crushing medical debt isn't one of them. And for a guy working in a factory for maybe $15k/yr, I think health care was both affordable and available.

jpete wrote:I've heard him talk about a lot of things but crushing medical debt isn't one of them. And for a guy working in a factory for maybe $15k/yr, I think health care was both affordable and available.

I can also atest to that, never was it an issue growing up. Heck, when I left Kaman Aerospace back in 1985 my family and I were all receiving Preventative medical from our own Company paid healthcare. The next job was also company paid until around 1987-88 IIRC. Then things changed, then co-pays that were unheard of started. First it was just .50 a week, not bad, then that changed to only being me at that fee but then family plans became increasingly higher and higher. Note that malpractice and huge lawsuit pay-outs were already big news and the norm rather than exception. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Tort reform would solve much of our ills, or at least slow the increases.

stockingfull wrote:What's the diff between that and "private gov't"?

The difference is one is ruled by open market competition and the other is forced on you. In my book, open competition wins everyday. It will bring the prices down and the quality of care up. This can happen with minimal regulation. No one is entitled to health care or anything else. It's all redistribution of wealth. Again I invite you to take a good look at what's happening in countries with socialized medicine. The poor quality and lack of progress in the medical field in those countries are clear for anyone to see unless they have a private agenda as do the liberals in this country, including OHB. The more you became dependent on them, the tighter the noose will become. You take the money or product and the bill will come due even if you don’t like the end product and once in the program, getting out is twice as hard. Look how the welfare state has destroyed the black middle class in this country through entitlements and the schools. That's true of any debt as you know from having to make a car payment on a lemon or a mortgage for a house with a leaky roof. Tough - the bill is due.

Again why would you want the government to be anymore in your life then it already is? And stop saying that it's because of the preventative medicine of the HMO era. My dad raised 6 kids during the 70s when an average interest rate was 21%. We all saw a doctor when needed. You're grasping at straws. Lisa

lowfog01 wrote:

stockingfull wrote:What's the diff between that and "private gov't"?

The difference is one is ruled by open market competition and the other is forced on you.
. . . Lisa

Wrong on both counts, Lisa. Had there truly been "open market competition" up to now, the insurance companies wouldn't have been able to drive good hospitals out of business and docs out of network -- or practice -- as they undeniably have in the past 15-20 yrs since gaining control of the patient market. Don't forget: the HMO's don't exist to provide care to you, they exist to earn profit in order to pay dividends to their shareholders. While the concept of "open competition" in that context may have merit, "mischief" develops in the execution when the initial savings have been earned and costs start to rise. Then they start denying authorization for procedures, and challenging conditions as "pre-existing," and auditing insureds for non-family members hanging on, and chiseling providers on payments, and raising co-pays, and raising premiums, and on and on. And they quickly realize, whether they're technically violating our anti-trust laws or not, that if "the whole industry" does it, the whole industry can get away with it. That's the fundamental problem with the "free market": it's not a free market at all.

Which brings us to your other misconception. The "public option" (which, as I understand it, is akin to allowing people to "buy in" to Medicare, or something like it) will be just that: an OPTION. It'll be there for people who want it, but you won't have to enroll in it and, if you do enroll, you won't have to stay in it indefinitely. It may be more helpful to think of it as a "citizens' healthcare co-operative," or like an HMO that's been taken over by an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) and run as a not-for-profit corporation, all savings and efficiencies being for the benefit of the patient-shareholders.

Bottom line: anytime you don't like either the cost or the service or the claims-handling in the "public option," you can go back out into the private marketplace and buy private health insurance again, if you can find something better. Much more likely, there will be "supplemental" programs offered by the private market for some of the things that have been mentioned here (as though only the gov't programs have ever denied them), like hip-replacements for the very elderly, etc., just like now happens in the Medicare system.

But what makes no sense at all is the completely imaginary notion that for-profit private corporations deliver better healthcare than a not-for-profit entity whose efficiencies inure to the benefit of the insureds, instead of the shareholders. By definition, it simply cannot be true.

stockingfull wrote:But what makes no sense at all is the completely imaginary notion that for-profit private corporations deliver better healthcare than a not-for-profit entity whose efficiencies inure to the benefit of the insureds, instead of the shareholders. By definition, it simply cannot be true.

Who's definition? Yours?

I've told this before but I'll say it again. I had laser eye surgery because I was tired of wearing contacts. Since it is "cosmetic" it is not covered by insurance. I called my eye doctor. He wanted $2400/eye. He offered another doctor, a recent addition to his office, at $1700/eye. Same machine, same procedure, same office, different guy running it.

I eventually ended up at a place across town for $800 and eye. And 8 years later I still have 20/20 and 20/15 vision from 20/200. The procedure took all of 15 minutes total. And the last time I went to my original eye doctor, he said that unless I told him I had the surgery, he wouldn't know. The scars are barely perceptible.

The point is, that's the free market in action. The doctor names his price, and if the market will bear it, that's what you pay. But competition means someone can always do the same job cheaper. Both doctors were equally busy. The guy I went to wasn't some hole in the wall. He is just more efficient. Basically, all he does is these surgeries. He works two days a month. The staff books appointments for two weeks, then a day of surgery, then two weeks of appointments and one more day of surgery. Total assembly line. They prepped us in groups of six and the doctor never got out of his chair. And as long as we had yearly eye exams(with anyone, not just him) he would guarantee the job for life. If your eyesight ever drops below 20/40(legal limit to drive) they will do the surgery again free.

And this model works for everything. From surgery to electronics to anything else you can think of.

Name anything that was heavily regulated by the government that got cheaper. There is nothing. And health care will be no different.

Irony alert -

But what makes no sense at all is the completely imaginary notion that for-profit private corporations deliver better healthcare than a not-for-profit entity whose efficiencies inure to the benefit of the insureds, instead of the shareholders.

The non-for-profit model the planned public entity as I understand is based on is pretty much the same thing the opponents of UHC are saying was so great (pre-1973/HMO era) and claim to be clamoring for. How many times has Jeff said the pre-1973 model is the ideal? And Lisa right above talking about how her parent's never complained about health care costs. Little wonder as it was a non-profit model back then and it worked well and it is very similar to what proponents of UHC are proposing.

Health care prior to the advent of HMOs was based on a non-profit model. The Blues were set up as not for profit orgs and they covered pretty much everyone wanting to see the doctor of their choice who walked up and paid the small premiums. It wasn't until after the HMO era began were the Blues allowed to convert to profit driven companies. With that, premiums began to increase, NO became a common refrain from insurer to insured and people were denied coverage if they have pre-existing conditions.

tvb wrote:Irony alert -

But what makes no sense at all is the completely imaginary notion that for-profit private corporations deliver better healthcare than a not-for-profit entity whose efficiencies inure to the benefit of the insureds, instead of the shareholders.

The non-for-profit model the planned public entity as I understand is based on is pretty much the same thing the opponents of UHC are saying was so great (pre-1973/HMO era) and claim to be clamoring for. How many times has Jeff said the pre-1973 model is the ideal? And Lisa right above talking about how her parent's never complained about health care costs. Little wonder as it was a non-profit model back then and it worked well and it is very similar to what proponents of UHC are proposing.

Health care prior to the advent of HMOs was based on a non-profit model. The Blues were set up as not for profit orgs and they covered pretty much everyone wanting to see the doctor of their choice who walked up and paid the small premiums. It wasn't until after the HMO era began were the Blues allowed to convert to profit driven companies. With that, premiums began to increase, NO became a common refrain from insurer to insured and people were denied coverage if they have pre-existing conditions.

Fine if that's the way you want it. But I know in RI, the General Assembly set up RI BC/BS. And they did it with tax dollars, because that's all governments have.

When my parents brought me to the pediatrician, we paid the doctor. And I'm pretty sure he was making a profit. I know my father didn't have medical insurance until the late 70's or early 80's. It was the Rhode Island Group Health Association and he still is pissed that BC/BS drove them, and later, Harvard Heath out of the state.

Why? Because they couldn't compete with the taxpayer funded BC/BS. So now, that's the ONLY option in RI. And guess what? Now a family plan is $15k/year and up. So much for governments driving down the cost of health care.

Of course the doctor made a profit. That's what doctors do as business people - try to make a profit. Unfortunately, the drive for profits by the insurance industry has made that more difficult. I don't think any proponents of UHC are denying doctors the right to make some money. I know with the docs I see, each of them say the system as we have it now is broken and something needs to be done and it's probably UHC that will work the best. One of them is even a Ron Paul supporter! He's got nothing good to say about insurance companies.

But I know in RI, the General Assembly set up RI BC/BS. And they did it with tax dollars, because that's all governments have.

What year? (or at least thereabouts what year?)