"Affordable" health care advocates explain this please.

stockingfull wrote:Who's said our plan is going to be identical to that of some particular other country for purposes of comparison?

I do not concede, any more than I did for your completely invalid "zero sum" analysis, that quality, or speed, or price will have to be sacrificed to reform the system -- at least as compared with the profit-driven private system we now have. To the contrary, I believe it will be better, faster and cheaper per capita than our currently-broken system.

My first name is Jon, and stockingfull refers to old yuletide threats when I was a kid. Get it?

Thanks for sharing the monikers.

Well, Jon, I admire your optimism. (You are a glass is half full guy and I am a glass is half empty guy.)You should be running a business.

In reality, often businesses that fail in good times fail because they over-extend themselves. Instead of saying "let's be all we can be" they say, "We are going to have the highest sales and greatest share of the market." They cast aside limitations.

The US is over extended. Politicians are casting aside all limitations. Resources are not unlimited. Any analysis must consider these realities.

I too believe the system can achieve greater efficiency and extend more benefits to more people but to do so as you describe, will change care as we know it, or bankrupt us. The assets of wealth will have to be tapped and distributed. The excesses of the pharmaceutical companies and certain health care providers must also be reckoned with to achieve it. Those actions are also subject to negative outcomes.

Preventive care is always a good idea but many won't or can't do it even when granted the opportunity. Those who embrace it are already getting it because they insist on it.

Many insist that our current system is broken. I disagree. The only broken part is that the poor and the disadvantaged need a safety net of care. I dont' think a major overhaul is in order.

Recall that we discussed mobocracy in previous threads and I remind you that though "you won", as Obama and you have pointed out, in a republic, the minorities of all types have rights to be protected including the wealthy. The 16th amendment wasn't granted to initiate a communist government. It was for the purpose of funding a republic.

stockingfull wrote:Dude, you're still not getting it.

I'm not criticizing the widgets; I'm criticizing the invalid, inapplicable zero-sum "machine shop" logic that healthcare is a pure production system where something always has to give in order to improve something else.

It's not.

Yes. It is. People are motivated by money. It will can make them do a better job, work faster, or work longer hours.

If a doctor isn't going to make more money than any other doctor, why hustle to get more patients?

If a pharmaceutical company can't make boat loads of money of their invention, why strive to make a better drug?

All countries with socialized medicine have long waits to get to see a doctor. Why do you think Congress is smarter than all these other countries? If they haven't gotten it right after all this time, why do you think we can do an endrun around the whole thing and come up with a winning plan?

I'm not talking about merely "socializing" the broken existing system. If I were, I might agree with your premise that "something's gotta give."

I'm talking rather about fixing the system by redirecting the focus to the same preventative care which made the HMO's rich in the last quarter-century. It's proven to have worked to make the system much more cost-efficient, and we can exploit that greater efficiency to cover a lot more people for the same total cost.

I don't claim that it'll be a net savings overall. But I do expect that the numbers will amply justify the new approach at the end of the day.

mikeandgerry wrote:For the umpteenth time, affordability comes at the expense of quality and speed of service. That's what other socialized programs in other nations are demonstrating.

And that affordability will come with a board of politicians that will decide when it is no longer economically viable to maintain your health.

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:For the umpteenth time, affordability comes at the expense of quality and speed of service. That's what other socialized programs in other nations are demonstrating.

And that affordability will come with a board of politicians that will decide when it is no longer economically viable to maintain your health.

That will certainly save some of your precious tax dollars - isn't that what opponents of UHC want?

tvb wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:For the umpteenth time, affordability comes at the expense of quality and speed of service. That's what other socialized programs in other nations are demonstrating.

And that affordability will come with a board of politicians that will decide when it is no longer economically viable to maintain your health.

That will certainly save some of your precious tax dollars - isn't that what opponents of UHC want?

One, yes, those dollars are precious to me. I worked for them and earned them. I'd like to keep them.

And if I'm 87 and need a hip replacement, I'd like to get one. Not be told by the government that I'm going to die soon so I can't have one.

I guess that means you'll be refusing to accept Medicare? It's socialism after all and if your fears are correct, you'll be begging a board of political types for that surgery. Enjoy paying for that hip replacement out of your own pocket since no private insurance in the world will cover an 87 year old.

tvb wrote:That will certainly save some of your precious tax dollars - isn't that what opponents of UHC want?

They want the best possible healthcare, is that wrong? Have you ever bought car parts that were "universal" and they wouldn't fit your Chevy? That is what universal healthcare is, a compromise. If you are paying for it, I would think you would want the best. If someone was getting it for nothing, then I am willing to bet the insured would be willing to except some restrictions.

tvb wrote:I guess that means you'll be refusing to accept Medicare? It's socialism after all and if your fears are correct, you'll be begging a board of political types for that surgery. Enjoy paying for that hip replacement out of your own pocket since no private insurance in the world will cover an 87 year old.

I won't accept Medicare when they stop taking money out of my check to pay for it. As long as I'm paying taxes, I'm going to get a return on my investment.

You agree to stop taking the money, I'll agree to not accept any treatment. Deal?

Unfortunately, with 49 million uninsured Americans and more and more joining that population every day when they lose their jobs and thus their employee sponsored healthcare, it's a model that no longer works. Those 49 million want and deserve health care too - as do the millions who have lost their jobs in recent months.

Right now the plan as it''s been laid out, those that have and want private insurance will have it. Those that want public insurance will have the opportunity to have that and there won't be 49 million of our fellow Americans denied basic healthcare. What is more right here? Denying basic health care to millions of people and saying, "The hell with them, I got mine." Or seeing a plan in place which will cost no more than we already dump into the health care system and seeing a healthy nation?

tvb wrote:Unfortunately, with 49 million uninsured Americans and more and more joining that population every day when they lose their jobs and thus their employee sponsored healthcare, it's a model that no longer works. Those 49 million want and deserve health care too - as do the millions who have lost their jobs in recent months.

Right now the plan as it''s been laid out, those that have and want private insurance will have it. Those that want public insurance will have the opportunity to have that and there won't be 49 million of our fellow Americans denied basic healthcare. What is more right here? Denying basic health care to millions of people and saying, "The hell with them, I got mine." Or seeing a plan in place which will cost no more than we already dump into the health care system and seeing a healthy nation?

When did "DESERVE" ever come into play?!?

You deserve what you work for. Nothing more nothing less. You certainly don't deserve what I worked for.

I'm going to get a return on my investment.

And at 1.45%, it's probably the best return you are ever going to get. I'd be careful what you wish for should you think you might be needing that hip replacement.

Jeff, I really hope you never lose your job because it's going to be a joy for the rest of us to watch you eat crow and accept public insurance if that should happen. Unless of course you believe your family doesn't deserve health care and all.

tvb wrote:Jeff, I really hope you never lose your job because it's going to be a joy for the rest of us to watch you eat crow and accept public insurance if that should happen. Unless of course you believe your family doesn't deserve health care and all.

I've already been without a job and needed medical care. If I am without a job and my family needs medical care, I wouldn't expect you to pay for it. They would have to do without. If it was emergent and life threatening, then I would expect to get a bill for services. As has already happened to me. Did you know it costs $450 to dispatch an ambulance and $20 per mile to the hospital? At least that's what it cost 10 or 12 years ago.

The world owes you nothing tvb. And I expect nothing from the world other than what I can earn.

And if you get cancer? Then what? Are you prepared to pay a hospital upfront for any tumor removal surgery that may be necessary? It's what they ask for these days if the treatment is not an emergency.