[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not at all. Have you looked at whether immigrants can get health care in countries with UHC for the first few years of legal immigration? Much less illegal.

An immigrant is a taxpayer. There's a long process to immigration, and in many cases you must show useful skills.

So bringing a skilled, tax-paying worker into the national healthcare system sounds about as much of a burden as bringing one into an employer healthcare system.

Have you found that employers have a big problem with immigrant workers draining their healcare? Can you cite?

No, but the vast number of illegals in my state are already.

But illegals aren't covered. There's no new care for them in the UHC bill. What difference do they make in this discussion?

You know, UHC is precisely this in theory, an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure theoretically. In actuality, it will be vast bloat, and waste.

The US doesn't actually do it. Every country that actually does do it actually has far lower per-person healthcare costs than we do.

So if it's good in theory, and it's good in practice everywhere it's done, why will it be bad here?

And let's not forget "then stop fighting UHC and start fighting the bloat you think it will have". The current systems (both governmetnal and private) are full of waste. Let's do something about that.

You mean like what the US has had for years without UHC? Pure "Unsupported and illogical rhetoric." And dishonest to boot by implying this is not the case, which is just dishonest.

It has? Please tell me which program. My cousin makes about $28,000 per year. She had cancer and should be getting regular CT scans. Where can she get that paid for?

You tell me that we have it, but Harvard tells me 45,000 Americans die each year because of the lack of health coverage. I'm going to need you to show me where we have it.

This might make sense, but it is not a moral issue, and its the first logical support you have provided

There are some moral comments and some comments about reprocussions and consequences. There is no such thing as a moral statistic. If you call moral comments rhetoric, and statistical comments as not-moral-related, then you'll find nothing in any post of any use to you, including your own.

I don't buy that this is the case.

number of deaths: harvard 45,000 - Bing

US is most expensive care: healthcare per capita - Bing

US does poorly in preventable deaths: nation preventable death - Bing

Since when is the state, the enemy of Jesus, synonymous with him?

You show me where I said the state was synonymous with Jesus and I'll answer that. I didn't.

I said Jesus commands that you love your neighbor, and not acting to prevent your neighbor's untimely death is very unloving.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

An immigrant is a taxpayer. There's a long process to immigration, and in many cases you must show useful skills.

So bringing a skilled, tax-paying worker into the national healthcare system sounds about as much of a burden as bringing one into an employer healthcare system.

Have you found that employers have a big problem with immigrant workers draining their healcare? Can you cite?

Not employers, but I know people who have immigrated to Canada who have had problems getting coverage within the first few years. One of my wife and I's concerns about moving to Ireland (yes, we are looking at immigrating there) is that her healthcare might not be covered for the first 5 years if she gets pregnant.

But illegals aren't covered. There's no new care for them in the UHC bill. What difference do they make in this discussion?

Quite a bit actually. If UHC does nothing for them, (which would not hold for long in my state I am sure) how is that any morally better. I see how you could argue that it makes things better for citizens.

But illegals always make a major point in discussion of healthcare because they are in large part the cause of hospitals going bankrupt here, because free care is provided that is never compensated for, and yes, a lot of hospitals around here are severely in the red.

Because America has far laxer standards than any nation I have heard of with UHC, it becomes apparent that it is a problem we will have to deal with. A uniquely American problem.

The US doesn't actually do it. Every country that actually does do it actually has far lower per-person healthcare costs than we do.

Yes, but do they have the same quality health care available. I know several Canadians who are stunned that you can get a ct-scan for cash here. Apparently, there is a pretty long waiting list for even fairly serious diseases.

Generally speaking, there are 3 components to healthcare, and you can have up to to of them at a time.

Cheap
Good
Accessible to all.

The problem is, you cannot actually have all 3 at once. If you make it cheap and accessible to all, like McDonalds burgers, the quality is going to suffer. It applies in almost any form of business, that as the level of quality and service go up, the price tag goes up.

Now, you are telling people that if you drive the cost way down on an industry that is already losing money, that the quality and availability will go up.

So if it's good in theory, and it's good in practice everywhere it's done, why will it be bad here?

Because of all the people I have talked to from countries with UHC, they seem to think our quality of care is superior. Michael Moore aside, I think that could be backed up.

And let's not forget "then stop fighting UHC and start fighting the bloat you think it will have". The current systems (both governmetnal and private) are full of waste. Let's do something about that.

UHC is bloat. It is also government expanding of powers, rights, and authority over the private individual by making my personal health a government matter. This in and of itself is alarming to me as I far prefer the government that is less interested in providing doles, (be they bread or healthcare) and is concerned with staying free and protecting her citizenry through law.

It has? Please tell me which program. My cousin makes about $28,000 per year. She had cancer and should be getting regular CT scans. Where can she get that paid for?

Classic bait and switch. Emergencies you can get health care for. And I am sure that if your cousin was amongst a group of friends or a church that frankly, private individuals would be happy to help. I spearheaded a similar effort last year for the wife of one of the seminary students, and we covered the cost for insurance and tests and food for the family.

That, not government control of assets, (which is what this is, as healthcare access is an asset) is the model I would follow. Connecting people, rather than forcing people to pay up for what will likely be a huge step backward.

You tell me that we have it, but Harvard tells me 45,000 Americans die each year because of the lack of health coverage. I'm going to need you to show me where we have it.

Did you read much of that study? The definitions rendered it useless. Nevermind the fact that generally speaking the uninsured poor, (as separate from the uninsured who could well afford it, which is also a separate issue) have numerous risk factors that the middle class does not which were not factored in. Basically it boiled down to the fact that more of them die. It answers the why, that the actual data provided with an answer. However, its an answer that does not account for all the variables (which was acknowledged in the study)

There are some moral comments and some comments about reprocussions and consequences. There is no such thing as a moral statistic. If you call moral comments rhetoric, and statistical comments as not-moral-related, then you'll find nothing in any post of any use to you, including your own.

Because the fact that people are trying to push a political agenda which the opposing side believes will exacerbate the problem. (creating a lower standard of care across the board leading to even more potential deaths) Its simply a matter of propaganda, saying that if you disagree you support death, when in reality, I think you are supporting a misguided system that will be corrupt as you are putting all your eggs in a henhouse guarded by foxes with a taste for eggs.

number of deaths: harvard 45,000 - Bing

Try the conservative estimate was 35k, and the study admitted it didn't account for lifestyle differences.

US is most expensive care: healthcare per capita - Bing

I wouldn't doubt that.

US does poorly in preventable deaths: nation preventable death - Bing

Its all in the definitions, as I am sure you know.

You show me where I said the state was synonymous with Jesus and I'll answer that. I didn't.

I said Jesus commands that you love your neighbor, and not acting to prevent your neighbor's untimely death is very unloving.

No, you said not supporting UHC was synonymous with being a bad Christian.

I would act to prevent my neighbor's untimely death, without UHC. I have done it before, and I will likely do it again.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not employers, but I know people who have immigrated to Canada who have had problems getting coverage within the first few years. One of my wife and I's concerns about moving to Ireland (yes, we are looking at immigrating there) is that her healthcare might not be covered for the first 5 years if she gets pregnant.

So, currrently, immigrants get nothing (and neither to non-immigrants unless they are over 65 or get on medicade).

So your concern is that, if we implament UHC, it's possible that the sitution will be exactly the same as it is now for some portion of the population?

I cannot fathom how that is a "UHC is bad" argument. Can you explain it to me?

Quite a bit actually. If UHC does nothing for them, (which would not hold for long in my state I am sure) how is that any morally better. I see how you could argue that it makes things better for citizens.

If we assume that providing medical care for those in need is moral then the logic goes like this:

Giving medical care to the 40million Americans who don't have it now is better than not giving them healthcare.

Someone *could* then argue why whe should cover illegals, or why we should not, but the only way I can see that tying into the existing conversation would be a person opposing the current UHC plan for not going far enough and wanting more... which does not appear to be your position.

But illegals always make a major point in discussion of healthcare because they are in large part the cause of hospitals going bankrupt here, because free care is provided that is never compensated for, and yes, a lot of hospitals around here are severely in the red.

Actually, the US government already pays hospitals for indegent care.

But again this doesn't seem to be a "no to UHC" point of contention.

My position is: if a hospital is required now to care for someone who cannot pay, then the government (who made the requirement) should reemburse the hospital.

This is seperate frim UHC, unless someone is arguing to include such care in UHC, which is not currently the case.

Because America has far laxer standards than any nation I have heard of with UHC, it becomes apparent that it is a problem we will have to deal with. A uniquely American problem.

I don't agree with your premise (Sweeden has takenin more refugees from Iraq, Canada and Ireland seem to have standards which are more lax).

Even if I accept your premise (America lets in more immagrants), you still haven't shown that immigration creates any extra burden.

Yes, but do they have the same quality health care available. I know several Canadians who are stunned that you can get a ct-scan for cash here. Apparently, there is a pretty long waiting list for even fairly serious diseases.

And when I tried to get into Moffit Cancer center for much needed chemo, the wait for me was two months to even see a doctor. When I arranged for a bone-marrow transplant, the wait was three months.

Anticdotes are irrellevent (did you see the video of the woman who died in the US ER waiting room?).

I'd bet your Canadian friends were equally surprised the find out that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptsy in the US. I suspect they are surprised to find out that we are 16th from the bottom in preventable deaths. I suspect they were surprised to find out that people with alsheimers and hypertension often have to choose which of the two to treat because their healthcare won't cover both. I'm sure they were surprised to find out that insurance will dump your for getting sick, that people with negative histories can't reasonably afford private insurance, and that insurance plans have "lifetime maximums".

Did they mention any of that?

Generally speaking, there are 3 components to healthcare, and you can have up to to of them at a time.

Cheap
Good
Accessible to all.

The problem is, you cannot actually have all 3 at once. If you make it cheap and accessible to all, like McDonalds burgers, the quality is going to suffer. It applies in almost any form of business, that as the level of quality and service go up, the price tag goes up.

Really? Germany has healthcare for all, which costs half what healthcare here costs, and which prevents more deaths (they score better on the "preventable deaths" test). So does Japan (who has more MRIs / CTs/ etc per capita, and whos patients get twice the doctor time). So does France (where many, many Americans with dual citizenship go to have their children because of the excellent healthcare).

Now, you are telling people that if you drive the cost way down on an industry that is already losing money, that the quality and availability will go up.

The industry isn't loosing money. Health insurance companies are showing record profits. I know first hand some of the profit margins (I cannot repeat them as part of my employment contract). But go look at the income for United, Humana, Aetna.

But "yes, absolutely, I can drive costs down without sacrificing care". We had a CGR poster here who a while back mentioned on of his own experiences. He needed minor surgery. The doctor was equipped to do it in office. Insurance wouldn't cover it, so he went to the hospital to have it done (Much higher cost, but insurance paid it).

The whole pay-method for doctors are based around, not care, but procedures. It encourages unneccessairy tests and procedures while discouraging spending time with a patient or actually fixing them.

We have, bluntly, too many MRIs here. We over-treat, often with things that simply don't work (for most people, surgery aggrivates back prblems more than they help, often true for other joints, and don't get me started on antibiotics (at least cheap) for everything).

Because of all the people I have talked to from countries with UHC, they seem to think our quality of care is superior. Michael Moore aside, I think that could be backed up.

The ones I've talked to don't. I'll start with by sister and her husband who live in Sweeden. Then there's my cousin in Canada (and several friends).

UHC is bloat. It is also government expanding of powers, rights, and authority over the private individual by making my personal health a government matter.

I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH: THAT SHIP SAILED LONG AGO!

WHY ISN'T THERE A SINGLE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNING TO END MEDICARE?!?!?

This in and of itself is alarming to me as I far prefer the government that is less interested in providing doles, (be they bread or healthcare) and is concerned with staying free and protecting her citizenry through law.

Protect me from what?

If you could go back in time and prevent the WHO from wiping otu small-pox would you? Wasn't that just the sort of social healthcare you are campaigning aginst now?

[nolidad]

I said Jesus commands that you love your neighbor, and not acting to prevent your neighbor's untimely death is very unloving.

Yes that is true- but also that command is a personal not a corporate one. If we were to speak of obeying Jesus and preventing untimely deaths- we should as a nation first look at baning tobacco- that is cause for over 400,000 deaths per year.

While we are at it:

Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts

We spend so much in health care for poor personal choices. We mess up our lives then spend enormous sums to get well again only to go back to the habits that were destroying us all ov er again.

But to go after things like tobacco and alcoholism are forbidden, because the govt. makes billions in "sin-taxes".

Reforming health care is important, but govt run is a bad scenario.

Medicare rejects more claims than private insurers:

Big Government Blog Archive AMA Endorses Largest Denier of Health Care Claims

Also more and more doctors are opting out of medicare because of continued drop in reimburment rates. The newet version of health care reform unveiled last night promises $440,000,000,000 in medicare savings. thoise savings can only comein 2 forms drop in coverage or reduction in reimbursement rates causiong even more doctors to opt out of medicare. Not a good way to get more people to go see doctors.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Yes that is true- but also that command is a personal not a corporate one.

So religious morals should definately not effect corporations or public policy?

If we were to speak of obeying Jesus and preventing untimely deaths- we should as a nation first look at baning tobacco- that is cause for over 400,000 deaths per year.

I'm for it... especially given that tobacco kills non-smokers, creates a huge fiscal burden on non-smokers, and is so heavily marketed.

We spend so much in health care for poor personal choices. We mess up our lives then spend enormous sums to get well again only to go back to the habits that were destroying us all ov er again.

The majority of spending is in the last six months of life. It's care that, in the end, doesn't work. But it does mean that the "get healthy and then kill ourselves again" crowd is not the major problem.

But to go after things like tobacco and alcoholism are forbidden, because the govt. makes billions in "sin-taxes".

I think alcholol was a pragmatic issue, much like the current discussion of decriminalizing some drugs. When we did outlaw it, it didn't really lower alcholol consumption, but it did raise crime.

I don't consider it forbidden, but the options must be weighed for the public good ("promote the general welfare")

Reforming health care is important, but govt run is a bad scenario.

They are all bad scenerios. Based on the various things that have been tried, the best results have been government-run.

Medicare rejects more claims than private insurers:

Sure. But the real question is "why is that the case?" The statistic is useless without qualitative data.

Also more and more doctors are opting out of medicare because of continued drop in reimburment rates.

They are also opting out of private insurance. I have private coverage and have to pay more than one of my doctors myself because I like them and don't want to change doctors.

The newet version of health care reform unveiled last night promises $440,000,000,000 in medicare savings.

There are many things that *could* result in a lowering of cost without a lowering of care... if something medicare now pays for is moved elsewhere.

It's also possible that it's a provision put in by the group (of almost all Republicans) trying to make sure that any bill that goes up is a complete disaster. They know there's two ways to take back seats from the Dems. Make sure nothing is passed, or make sure what is passed is awful.

I found out the other night that despite my rhetoric, I had still had some belief that republicans did actually want, on some level, America to succeed. Certainly the Becks and Limbaughs hoping for terrorists to drop a nuke on the US just to cost Obama face were the wackos.

Then I saw the repubilcan convention last week where Chicago loosing the olympics was announced. The entire room started cheering. It turned my stomach to realize that they really don't even care a little.

[nolidad]

So religious morals should definately not effect corporations or public policy?

Not in America-- they would be sued by the ACLU.

I'm for it... especially given that tobacco kills non-smokers, creates a huge fiscal burden on non-smokers, and is so heavily marketed.

WOW we agreed on something again!! Could this be the start of a trend?

The majority of spending is in the last six months of life. It's care that, in the end, doesn't work. But it does mean that the "get healthy and then kill ourselves again" crowd is not the major problem.

but a big one nonetheless. Its amazing that as medicine has advanced- we have created the problem. We do not want to withhold care from people but multi thousand dollar therapies for the aged can only give a few months more life many times.

They are all bad scenerios. Based on the various things that have been tried, the best results have been government-run.

Well if they leave the trust funds alone, do not overly expand the benefits past the original parameters without finding ways to pay for it. I think the best solution is a govt. mandate then ran by a private corp. to insure it remains viable.

Then I saw the repubilcan convention last week where Chicago loosing the olympics was announced. The entire room started cheering. It turned my stomach to realize that they really don't even care a little.

Thats moslty because the Olympics are high cost ventures to the countries. Also Obama has been apologizing for America and Bush even to the olympic committee. Also Chicago is not a good venue to hold Olympics. Most people know it was jsut payback to Valerie Jarrett and other who stand to make enormous profits from having a chicago olympics.

I found out the other night that despite my rhetoric, I had still had some belief that republicans did actually want, on some level, America to succeed. Certainly the Becks and Limbaughs hoping for terrorists to drop a nuke on the US just to cost Obama face were the wackos.

Well as neither hope for another terrorist attack on America and both pronounce and the promote American exceptionalism- I will take your comment as democrat rhetoric. Beck is actually a real patriot. If peopel spent real time following his talks you would see. He has the common sense apporach and belief int eh goodness of the people of America. What he hates is the corruption that is endemic in both parties in Washington. D.C.

There are many things that *could* result in a lowering of cost without a lowering of care... if something medicare now pays for is moved elsewhere.

The it either becomes an unfunded mandates shifted to the states or an increase in out of pocket costs. Shfiting costs is just making us pay money out of a different pocket.

They are also opting out of private insurance. I have private coverage and have to pay more than one of my doctors myself because I like them and don't want to change doctors.

Well medicare is the "govt". Doctors opting in and out of insurance groups happens alot. There are many other groups in the vicinity that do offer coverage under ones plan. If one wants a particular docotr then yes they must pay. That has always been the way since insurance came. But insurers are generally more generous than the govt. also medicare is the coverage of last resort for he elderly and when the govt. forces doctors out because of too small reimbursement rates and huge mounds of paperwork- it is sad. Govt. should "promote" not discourage. Also you may know this- don't doctors and ins. companies tend to negotiate rates?

Sure. But the real question is "why is that the case?" The statistic is useless without qualitative data.

True- for that all I havebeen able to find are teh general complaints like uneeded procedure, cheaper alternatives, pre existing conditions and the like.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

but a big one nonetheless. Its amazing that as medicine has advanced- we have created the problem. We do not want to withhold care from people but multi thousand dollar therapies for the aged can only give a few months more life many times.

6,000 per year *70 years = 720,000 / 2 = 360,000.. for a rough estimate that fails to factor inflation.

Well if they leave the trust funds alone, do not overly expand the benefits past the original parameters without finding ways to pay for it. I think the best solution is a govt. mandate then ran by a private corp. to insure it remains viable.

Like the FRB? I didn't think you liked the FRB?

One mistake you make repeatedly in your argument against government is that there's no honest proponent of "private monopoly". At least not among economists.

The question is actually whether the free market is more effective than a regulated monopoly. Who runs it is immaterial. The answer is "for some things one and for some the other". Experimention throughout the 20th century (and so far in the 21st) shows single-payor systems less expensive and more effective for the majority of people.

Thats moslty because the Olympics are high cost ventures to the countries.

The republicans didn't think that when the Olympics were under Reagan in LosAngelas or Lake Placid, nor did they think so when it was secured for Atlanta under Bush Sr.

No. It's very clear that it's mostly because it costs Obama face. They were celebrating the failure of Obama to get the Olympics. As their mascots have said "I want to see Obama fail".

Also Obama has been apologizing for America and Bush even to the olympic committee. Also Chicago is not a good venue to hold Olympics. Most people know it was jsut payback to Valerie Jarrett and other who stand to make enormous profits from having a chicago olympics.

Well. The City of Chicago thought otherwise. Perhaps they forgot to consult with you as to what was best for them.

As to what "Everyone knows"... the assume. Chicago was in the race in 2007, so the consideration wasn't just because of Obama, though I'm sure it being his home town is one reason he went.

Well as neither hope for another terrorist attack on America and both pronounce and the promote American exceptionalism- I will take your comment as democrat rhetoric.

I guess Beck nodding in agreement to "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States." threw me off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HtSb7k☺☺☺E

Beck is actually a real patriot.

Perhaps it was calling the president a racist terrorst that made me question his patriotism (two seperate links if you want them).

If peopel spent real time following his talks you would see. He has the common sense apporach and belief int eh goodness of the people of America. What he hates is the corruption that is endemic in both parties in Washington. D.C.

Or his hate of 9/11 victim's families: I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions - YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"

The it either becomes an unfunded mandates shifted to the states or an increase in out of pocket costs. Shfiting costs is just making us pay money out of a different pocket.

Assumes falsely that shifting is bad in a country where half of all bankruptsies are medical costs. Assumes falsely that a reduction in per-capita costs is not a viable outcome.

Well medicare is the "govt". Doctors opting in and out of insurance groups happens alot. There are many other groups in the vicinity that do offer coverage under ones plan. If one wants a particular docotr then yes they must pay. That has always been the way since insurance came. But insurers are generally more generous than the govt. also medicare is the coverage of last resort for he elderly and when the govt. forces doctors out because of too small reimbursement rates and huge mounds of paperwork- it is sad. Govt. should "promote" not discourage. Also you may know this- don't doctors and ins. companies tend to negotiate rates?

Funny thing all those private companies taking no more from medicare than medicare pays directly and yet ending up with a profit margin.

Also funny that Medicare from the government is taken by more doctors than any private insurance.

Also funny that, using your own link, there are more transactions in medicare than everyone else combined: despite the fact that anyone on medicare could opt for private medicare.

True- for that all I havebeen able to find are teh general complaints like uneeded procedure, cheaper alternatives, pre existing conditions and the like.

Really? You might want to also look at oldest patients, poorest patients, least educated patients, and any number of other.

But, if your assumption is true, it should be easy to prove. A random sampling of refused claims by both should find that private medicare regularly covers what public does not.

Though as I poined out earlier, you aren't really asking the right question. The question is one of free-market vs not-free-market: not government vs private. Or do you believe Enron was well run?

[nolidad]

Like the FRB? I didn't think you liked the FRB?

Different area- different constitutionality issues.

One mistake you make repeatedly in your argument against government is that there's no honest proponent of "private monopoly". At least not among economists.

The question is actually whether the free market is more effective than a regulated monopoly. Who runs it is immaterial. The answer is "for some things one and for some the other". Experimention throughout the 20th century (and so far in the 21st) shows single-payor systems less expensive and more effective for the majority of people.

That also depends on which criteria you are evaluating.

No. It's very clear that it's mostly because it costs Obama face. They were celebrating the failure of Obama to get the Olympics. As their mascots have said "I want to see Obama fail".

Well its because Limbaugh (he is the only mascot touting this) is against his policies and ideology for America. Because Obama is such a leftist ideologue- yes he wants him to fail Just as REid and Pelosi wanted Bush to fail. And the other ideologued fromteh left- that is a given when one party is president.

The republicans didn't think that when the Olympics were under Reagan in LosAngelas or Lake Placid, nor did they think so when it was secured for Atlanta under Bush Sr.

Because the presidents didn't go pitch the cities. Obama was pitching Chicago not for patriotic tones- that is clear.

Well. The City of Chicago thought otherwise. Perhaps they forgot to consult with you as to what was best for them.

Well Gallup and Pew polls showed the split of people more against than for having the olympics.

I guess Beck nodding in agreement to "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States." threw me off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HtSb7k☺☺☺E

Well your you tube site had no video fo beck so I couldn't see what they clipped. Also I am sure it was pulled from its full context. Beck says lots of things that if pulled from their context can be very controversial. Viewed in their context- they are not.

Perhaps it was calling the president a racist terrorst that made me question his patriotism (two seperate links if you want them).

Well I saw the fox and friends show where he said that Obama didn't like white people. I would love to see a video where he calls Obama a terrorist- I watch his show almost daily and he tends against that- though he hates the ideology of Obama.

Or his hate of 9/11 victim's families: I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions - YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"

Your phraisng is a dishonest portraying of his statement. He said it about 5 times on this 2 minute clip that it is only about 10 of them and then he defines why- they are addicted to the victimhood status.

Assumes falsely that shifting is bad in a country where half of all bankruptsies are medical costs. Assumes falsely that a reduction in per-capita costs is not a viable outcome.

well if medicare will no longer cover costs (like maybe excluding preexisting conditions they know will cost enormous sums) the costs will have to be picked up by somebody somewhere- the $400,000,000,000+ cuts in medicare benefits are going to either have to be paid by the individuals or the states who are less able to absorb more expense than the fed is able right now. By reducing benefits by $400,000,000,000 they will add to teh medical bankruptcies in this country. And with th eresession continuing on and gathering for tis second round- medical bankruptcies are now less than half of the bankruptcies

Also funny that Medicare from the government is taken by more doctors than any private insurance.

well given that we are a country that garners the majority of its health insurance from employer based plans no wonder that people over 65 go to medicare. they are retired and most companies do not have retiree health plans or if they do they are far more cost prohibitive than medicare. Companies that are for profit companies- have to make a profit or they go out of business. Cigna, Aetna, BC/BS, Human et al. are not the govt. and cannot keep borrowing money it doesn't have to provide a service- they will cease to exist. Even the govt is now going to have increase deficits to pay for medicare bills., but then again that is because medicare and Social Security have bween the govt. run largest ponzi schemes in history.

Funny thing all those private companies taking no more from medicare than medicare pays directly and yet ending up with a profit margin.

Seeing as they also get paid from individuals and other health plans - it shouldn't be funny. If medicare was such a great thing for physicians we would find more opting in instead of out. Less than half of the eligible physicians for treating medicare patients are enrolled inmedicare and that number is dropping. Doctors interviewed on CNN, Fox, CNBC, and FBN all say that medicare doesn't cover the cost fo their practice and the paperwork is too expensive a hassle.

Also funny that, using your own link, there are more transactions in medicare than everyone else combined: despite the fact that anyone on medicare could opt for private medicare.

Well we are talking about % of claims rejected which they lead the way on. Also the govt. hasd made it easier to enroll in the govt. plan than the govt. sobsidized private plans. That is just convenience of use.

Really? You might want to also look at oldest patients, poorest patients, least educated patients, and any number of other.

Well not being able to break through ins. comapny firewalls, I am not privy in tot he decisions they use to exclude people, Nor am I privy to why medicare rejects people either. With confidentiaslity rules in place all we have is mostly uncorroborated testimony. Saying that I also know that greed, corruption and other negative values also come to play in some decisions, I do not believe private insurers are 100% holy.

[JerryLove]

You advocated a solution (a private-public mesh) that you've said was invalid in other cases on merit of being a private-public mesh. You provided exactly ZERO support for why that would be a good solution.

You made false claims about several people. I gave video contradicting each of your claims. You ignored it. You offered no counter-evidence. You then proceeded to make several other claims based on nothing but your specualtion (well, I suspect someone else's rhetoric actually).

You made huge budget assumptions regarding cost-cutting. When I showed you several other scenerios, you ignored them and just made new assumptions.

You've admitted ignorance to the inner-workings of the healthcare industry but continue to assert your assumptions counter to the supported statements of someone who works in the health insurance industry (me).

I don't see how it would be possible to be productive under such circumstances. I'll gladly discuss it with someone else.

[brandontmilan]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not employers, but I know people who have immigrated to Canada who have had problems getting coverage within the first few years. One of my wife and I's concerns about moving to Ireland (yes, we are looking at immigrating there) is that her healthcare might not be covered for the first 5 years if she gets pregnant.

I am an immigrant to Canada and was covered from the day I crossed the border.

In fact, my wife recently did get pregnant. Unfortunately, it recently ended in miscarriage. But, thankfully, we have not had the grief of losing our child compounded with the fact that we were $5000 dollars in debt.

You see, before we moved to Canada, we were paying $250 a month for insurance, plus about $250 in copays. That was just for my wife. Because she was diagnosed with a reproductive disorder, we could not get pregnancy coverage.

So if we were in the states when she got pregnant, we would have been in debt. We wouldn't have been able to afford to go to the doctor when she had complications.

My point is that anyone who is a temporary working resident for more than 6 months is eligible for coverage in every province (save, maybe, Quebec) upon the day they cross the border.

[nolidad]

seeing we have an active healthcare thread I didn't start a new one.

So we have a desperate crisis in health care that needs immediate attention.

Harry Reid today likened conserevatives who are oppossed to his plan as those who didn't want a change in slavery. Gentle man that he is.

Its so critical of a need that the liberal bills woould start collecting money from folks now- but then make those poor uninsured have to wait 4 years to get their coverage! (well accounting tricks aside to mask the true cost of the health care bill- it just shows liberal compassion)

time to put the new 2,000 page bill to bed and the house counterpart. Lets talk real reform and not govt. takeover of another industry of America.

[nolidad]

let us also not forget how quick REid and comapny change stripes to suit their own whims.

When Pres. Bush and the GOP proposed cutting $10 billion dollars from the growth of medicare (not cutting medicare but just slowing its growth) to contain costs- Reid and his minions screamed how cruel, barbaric and uncaring the GOP was. Now, they want to actually cut medicare over the next ten years by $500,000,000,000! Now that is compassion?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

seeing we have an active healthcare thread I didn't start a new one.

So we have a desperate crisis in health care that needs immediate attention.

Harry Reid today likened conserevatives who are oppossed to his plan as those who didn't want a change in slavery. Gentle man that he is.

Its so critical of a need that the liberal bills woould start collecting money from folks now- but then make those poor uninsured have to wait 4 years to get their coverage! (well accounting tricks aside to mask the true cost of the health care bill- it just shows liberal compassion)

time to put the new 2,000 page bill to bed and the house counterpart. Lets talk real reform and not govt. takeover of another industry of America.

Originally Posted by nolidad

let us also not forget how quick REid and comapny change stripes to suit their own whims.

When Pres. Bush and the GOP proposed cutting $10 billion dollars from the growth of medicare (not cutting medicare but just slowing its growth) to contain costs- Reid and his minions screamed how cruel, barbaric and uncaring the GOP was. Now, they want to actually cut medicare over the next ten years by $500,000,000,000! Now that is compassion?

citations for your claims?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Bryan

citations for your claims?

HAve to sign off today- will try to post the qoutes by tomorrow. Maybe later tonight if I can get done what I need to do.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Bryan

citations for your claims?

Health care reform could cut Medicare, hurt Oregon | Politics & Elections - - Oregonlive.com

Medicare cuts stay in Senate's health care bill - Boston.com
Medicare cuts stay in Senate's health care bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com