Smart move.

GM is tanking because of their healthcare liability.

Too bad Republicans cratered Hillary's initiatives back when she was assistant President.

Tons of pension funds will be saved if we get healthcare reform.

Is this where we ignore the current costs of healthcare and refuse to admit that the various systems used around the world, though not perfect, are much better than ours and a hell of a lot cheaper?

GAAAAA! NOOOOOOO!

We Americans are incapable of doing what Canada and France have done. We're FAR too stupid and corrupt and the effort would end in disaster. Not only that, but we have the best health care system in the entire freaking world already. Only the lazy among us are unable to afford health care.

Besides, national health care would be socialism and that would make baby Jebus cry.

Lots of libs hoping that the fine folks who run the DMV and the USPS will take over running our health care.

Break your arms? Well, fill in this form in triplicate, mail it in, and wait six weeks and you can go see a doctor.

I predict many constructive, interesting and well thought out proposals in this thread. The free exchange of ideas will doubtless usher in a mature consensus which will bring us one step closer to a practical vision of a system that, whilst flawed, will be an improvement on the obviously deficent present one.

Wait. . . It's only 60 billion? After throwing around hundreds of billions bailing out this company and that one? And this was the end of capitalism, socialized medicine, the evil of evils?

Only 60 billion? For these, we get to stop hearing the sob stories of people who were insured and the health insurance companies tell them no when they need to collect, and they die or go broke? That's it?

How much is that "defense" budget again, that's greater than the rest of the entire world's military budgets, combined?

I'm. . . . amused.

Another brilliant move, funded with another few billion.

Oh....and from the brilliant stimulus bill -

"The stimulus bill would apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council, which would approve or reject treatment based on a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit."

So, as in England, if you're seventy-seven, say, in good health, but have a heart valve that needs replacing -- forget it. Not cost effective. You're going to die soon anyway. This is how they do it in England and the health care provisions in the stimulus plan are based on the British model.

manduwala: I predict many constructive, interesting and well thought out proposals in this thread. The free exchange of ideas will doubtless usher in a mature consensus which will bring us one step closer to a practical vision of a system that, whilst flawed, will be an improvement on the obviously deficent present one.

Your mother is fat.

Bored Horde: Break your arms? Well, fill in this form in triplicate, mail it in, and wait six weeks and you can go see a doctor.

...because the US system is working so well we shouldn't touch it, right?

Or, instead of parroting right-wing talking point scare tactics, you could actually get outside of your own parochial experience, and examine how other developed economies have universal healthcare for a smaller fraction of their GDP and a lower admin overhead compared to the US.

Of course, that would actually require you to turn off the radio, engage your critical faculties, and leave your basement.

What's the surprise ? You knew this was coming before NOV 08'

I would rather see them spend the 60 billion on healthcare so that everyone can have some then blow it on some more missles, tanks, ships etc.

Health insurance, whether provided by the government or the private sector, should be illegal. It's an inherently abusive industry, and simply going to the single-payer model doesn't guarantee that the actual costs are going to be addressed, just diverted to the public (ending up like England).

If you get rid of insurance entirely, watch the market adjust real quick.

mandrsn1: So, as in England, if you're seventy-seven, say, in good health, but have a heart valve that needs replacing -- forget it. Not cost effective. You're going to die soon anyway. This is how they do it in England and the health care provisions in the stimulus plan are based on the British model.

YES. People don't realize that Universal Healthcare doesn't mean you get whatever treatment you want. Most likely the elderly die younger than under our current medical system.

In the United States, life expectancy at the age of 80 and survival from the ages of 80 to 100 significantly exceeded life expectancy in Sweden, France, England, and Japan (P (new window)

Sorry, I fail at HTML

60 billion? Screw that! Let's just pay for another 4 months of being in Iraq.

czetie: Bored Horde: Break your arms? Well, fill in this form in triplicate, mail it in, and wait six weeks and you can go see a doctor.

...because the US system is working so well we shouldn't touch it, right?

Or, instead of parroting right-wing talking point scare tactics, you could actually get outside of your own parochial experience, and examine how other developed economies have universal healthcare for a smaller fraction of their GDP and a lower admin overhead compared to the US.

Of course, that would actually require you to turn off the radio, engage your critical faculties, and leave your basement.

THIS is a perfect blueprint post on ObamaCo style healthcare, repeated ad naseum in every ObamaCo healthcare thread.

Full of

t3knomanser: Health insurance, whether provided by the government or the private sector, should be illegal. It's an inherently abusive industry, and simply going to the single-payer model doesn't guarantee that the actual costs are going to be addressed, just diverted to the public (ending up like England).

If you get rid of insurance entirely, watch the market adjust real quick.

Are the costs diverted to the public or are paid by corporate taxes/business owners? Who pays most of the taxes in America? Think about this one.

It's the same as sponsoring employee health insurance, really, only you cut out the insurance middlemen and the gov't will only pay a flat fee for each procedure to the health staff.

starsrift: Are the costs diverted to the public or are paid by corporate taxes/business owners?

Um... that's the public. Corporate personhood is another debate.

I stand by my point, however: insurance, regardless of who provides it, is a vile manipulation of the market and should be abolished for health care. No one, not even the government, should be able to manipulate the health care market in that way.

starsrift: Wait. . . It's only 60 billion? After throwing around hundreds of billions bailing out this company and that one? And this was the end of capitalism, socialized medicine, the evil of evils?

Only 60 billion? For these, we get to stop hearing the sob stories of people who were insured and the health insurance companies tell them no when they need to collect, and they die or go broke? That's it?

How much is that "defense" budget again, that's greater than the rest of the entire world's military budgets, combined?

I'm. . . . amused.

If you read the article, you'll note that this $60bn is to "plug a funding gap" in the Obama healthcare plan; meaning either that the healthcare reform is an additional $60bn more expensive than anticipated, or that it costs the same, but the administration has $60bn less to pay for it than they thought they had.

It does not mean the proposed healthcare reforms will cost a total of $60bn.

3_Butt_Cheeks: So, as in England, if you're seventy-seven, WHAARGAABL

Look, we've been through this. You can't just make stuff up and pretend it's true. You tried it in the election and it didn't work then. It's not working now.

We're not talking about denying care to somebody with a life expectancy of 10 years just because they're old. We're talking about a standard of care that says "spending $1,000,000 on a risky major surgery that at worst could itself kill the patient and at best extend their life expectancy by three months doesn't make sense, given all the other healthcare that $1,000,000 could buy."

There's really only two possible positions on this: either you agree with some version of that, and all we're arguing about is the threshold and the application of the clinical standards. And by the way, that already happens, with the insurance companies acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Or you believe in infinite healthcare costs, where your ever-rising insurance premiums are paying to extend the life of a dying person by a month, a day, an hour...; where less and less necessary tests are conducted and less and less hopeful procedures are attempted at any cost.

Anything else is a fairytale. Or possibly a Republican policy position, sometimes it's hard to say which.

So you can choose to run around going "ooga! booga! socialized medecine!". Or you can choose to engage in a meaningful debate about how to fix the current system, which is self-evidently broken. It's cost is a failure for those that do have insurance, it's lack of care is a failure for those who don't, and it's lack of accountability is a failure for providers who are picking up the slack.

The only people it's working for is a vast bureaucracy of healthcare administrators who have no clinical reason to exist, yet consume about one third of all healthcare spending in the US.

So which do you believe in: finite health care costs or infinite health care costs? Please stop pretending that there's another choice.

t3knomanser: Um... that's the public. Corporate personhood is another debate.

Yes and no. I would say it is part of the debate, because the wording does invoke responses. To say "the public" gives the impression that John Doe would be paying for Timmy Rickett's broken leg. Fact of the matter is, Timmy Rickett's employer and company shareholders would be paying a shiatload more of the percentage than John Doe is.


I stand by my point, however: insurance, regardless of who provides it, is a vile manipulation of the market and should be abolished for health care. No one, not even the government, should be able to manipulate the health care market in that way.

Oh definitely. It's a crazy business. You have to wonder who first even came up with the idea, "Let's insure people for getting unhealthy! Sounds like a good investment for me!" People always get sick and injured. Always.

t3knomanser: starsrift: Are the costs diverted to the public or are paid by corporate taxes/business owners?

Um... that's the public. Corporate personhood is another debate.

I stand by my point, however: insurance, regardless of who provides it, is a vile manipulation of the market and should be abolished for health care. No one, not even the government, should be able to manipulate the health care market in that way.

So how should people pay for their health care? Out of pocket? Do suggest paying doctors less after their years of schooling totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars? Getting rid of a system only makes sense if you have a better way to replace it.

3_Butt_Cheeks: THIS is a perfect blueprint post on ObamaCo style healthcare, repeated ad naseum in every ObamaCo healthcare thread.

...and yet, somehow, you completely fail to engage with the debate and offer some constructive alternative to the current failed system?

Is this the Republican equivalent of the famous Budget With No Figures?

czetie: So which do you believe in: finite health care costs or infinite health care costs? Please stop pretending that there's another choice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...

t3knomanser: starsrift: Are the costs diverted to the public or are paid by corporate taxes/business owners?

Um... that's the public. Corporate personhood is another debate.

I stand by my point, however: insurance, regardless of who provides it, is a vile manipulation of the market and should be abolished for health care. No one, not even the government, should be able to manipulate the health care market in that way.


What I'm wondering is when in the course of things did we start valuing the idea of the "free market" more than than people's health?

Hell yes I'd like the government to run health care. At least then I could get some.

3_Butt_Cheeks: czetie: So which do you believe in: finite health care costs or infinite health care costs? Please stop pretending that there's another choice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...

No, you've merely demonstrated that you have no worthwhile contribution to make and quite possibly no ability to even understand the question, let alone propose an answer. This isn't like choosing vanilla or chocolate ice cream, where "neither, thanks" is a possible answer.

But hey, as long as you don't have a proposal, nobody can criticize it, right?

The Numbers: starsrift: I'm. . . . amused.

If you read the article, you'll note that this $60bn is to "plug a funding gap" in the Obama healthcare plan; meaning either that the healthcare reform is an additional $60bn more expensive than anticipated, or that it costs the same, but the administration has $60bn less to pay for it than they thought they had.

It does not mean the proposed healthcare reforms will cost a total of $60bn.

Ahh, you're absolutely right. My eyes keep getting drawn to the boldly declarative first paragraph. Though it still amuses me, for a multitude of reasons.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure America could dig itself out of a recession without this change. I mean, American companies outsource to Canada, and it's even a bargain when the currencies are at parity for no other reason than that we have government health care and the companies don't have to dick around with insurance and stuff. Every dollar that goes to outsourcing, one can pretty much count on never seeing again. I mean if they're not careful, it will backfire horribly, but pretty much every other industrialized nation has set a decent example of how to get it done, in one way or another, and as long as the American gov't doesn't focus on reinventing the wheel, I think they'll do fine. And maybe get some of those outsourced jobs back.

t3knomanser: I stand by my point, however: insurance, regardless of who provides it, is a vile manipulation of the market and should be abolished for health care. No one, not even the government, should be able to manipulate the health care market in that way.

You sound like Ned Flanders (who said that insuance was too much like gambling).

Health insurance isn't the problem. Running health insurers as publicly-traded, for-profit businesses IS the problem. This is not something people should be trying to profit off of.

Control_this: Smart move.

GM is tanking because of their healthcare liability.

And encumbering the federal government and taxpayers with similar liabilities will make it less of a money pit?

Unnamed administration sources told Saturday's Wall Street Journal the new measures would be imposed over a 10-year period to plug an unexpected funding gap in the White House's proposed healthcare overhaul, which relies on medical care cost savings and tax hits to the wealthy.

"Unexpected funding gaps". Funny how predicable they are.

The Obama administration will try to wring $60 billion in new taxes from wealthy estates and U.S. businesses to pay for healthcare reforms, official sources say.

Really? Official sources said they were going to "wring" $60 b?

Damn Obama-worshiping, liberal media...

Ahhhh.... bring back the death tax.


Double taxation on the evil rich to fund healthcare problems that are not as statistacally relevant as they libs want you to believe.


As long as the punish rich peopl and redistibute it the wealth you loons are happy for like 5 minutes.


Most poor folk will qualify for gov't funded healthcare assistance, they are just too lazy or too stupid to sign up for the shiat. Especcially parents, kids are very protected.


But.... by all means if you can punish a minority group that is wealthy do it.


Karl Marx would be sooo proud.

carmody: Hell yes I'd like the government to run health care. At least then I could get some.

The only reason you can't get insurance is because your a cheap bastard and you don't have your priorities in order.

Cigarettes, booze and eating out are luxuries that come secondary to necessities as for providing for your self and your family.

I have insurance for my family and pay $380 a month. I bet you spend more than that on all your vises.

Get real!

skinnycatullus: Is this where we ignore the current costs of healthcare and refuse to admit that the various systems used around the world, though not perfect, are much better than ours and a hell of a lot cheaper?

No, this is the time where we ignore the current state and federal regulations/programs put in place that drive up the cost of health care and ignorantly claim that America has some sort of free market health care system.

Dwight_Yeast: Health insurance isn't the problem.

From what I understand from reading, health insurance is some guy without a degree on the other end of a phone telling your doctor, a man with years of medical training, what procedures he may perform to get you well?

And to you this is not a problem? Or do I misunderstand?

Phil Herup: statistacally


eewwww.

"statistically"

But....but....efficiencies! Will cost less!

Let me get this straight. The left thinks we are spending way too much on healthcare, so their answer is to spend even more.

Phil Herup: Ahhhh.... bring back the death tax.


Double taxation on the evil rich to fund healthcare problems that are not as statistacally relevant as they libs want you to believe.

Irrespective of the impact of nationalised healthcare on the quality of care provided, the economic boost provided by relieving companies of the burden of supplying health insurance to employees is surely enough of a reason to opt for reform.

starsrift: Dwight_Yeast: Health insurance isn't the problem.

From what I understand from reading, health insurance is some guy without a degree on the other end of a phone telling your doctor, a man with years of medical training, what procedures he may perform to get you well?

And to you this is not a problem? Or do I misunderstand?

Go back up and read ALL of my statement. When health insurance consisted of Blue Cross/Blue Shield (which are non-profits) we didn't have constantly rising costs and continually decreasing service.

Then, in the 1980's, a bunch of people decided that they could make money off of health insurance by setting up HMO's and the whole system went from bad to utterly farked up beyond all belief.

cchris_39: But....but....efficiencies! Will cost less!

Let me get this straight. The left thinks we are spending way too much on healthcare, so their answer is to spend even more.

No, the left think we spend way too much on healtcare ($2.4 TRILLON/year), but they think that by spending a little more, ($60 billion over 10 years, or $ billion/year) we can cover everyone and give them much better service than they're getting.

Understand?

The Numbers: Phil Herup: Ahhhh.... bring back the death tax.


Double taxation on the evil rich to fund healthcare problems that are not as statistacally relevant as they libs want you to believe.

Irrespective of the impact of nationalised healthcare on the quality of care provided, the economic boost provided by relieving companies of the burden of supplying health insurance to employees is surely enough of a reason to opt for reform.

yes you are right, companies are going to be thrilled that instead of paying for healthcare for only their employees they are going to be taxed more heavily to pay for healthcare for everyone.

Do you really think it is free healthcare? Someone is paying for it and it is going to be the companies that currently provide healthcare for their employees only instead of paying blue cross blue shield or any other healthcare provider they will be putting more money into the most wasteful company in the world (the US Government)

Phil Herup: Ahhhh.... bring back the death tax.

What tax would that be, Phil?

We've never had a tax on dying in this country.

we need real reform. single-payer universal healthcare. like the civilized nations do it. we pay more for less. just cut the middleman out and we save money and the businesses (other than insurance) saves money.

Obama's proposed half assed measure is nowhere near what it needs ot be. but he can't beat the lobbyists and their hired legislators on both sides of the aisle. So he's compromising. and that will be the reason it won't work.

Kevua: Do you really think it is free healthcare? Someone is paying for it and it is going to be the companies that currently provide healthcare for their employees only instead of paying blue cross blue shield or any other healthcare provider they will be putting more money into the most wasteful company in the world (the US Government)

Um, no.

If your company provides you healthcare through an outside insurer, that insurer will still carry your healthcare coverage.

They're not trying to create a socialized healthcare system; they're trying to REFORM the healthcare system, and there' a vast difference between the two.

/did no one pay any attention during the campaign?

I am pleased that my earlier predictions have proved so manifestly correct. The plethora of solutions that are being proposed combined with the absence of knee jerk name calling and posting of juvenile, recyled pictures is like a breath of fresh air in these troubled times.

Rob Anybody Sadly, on that point I can offer no convincing counter argument.

starsrift: Dwight_Yeast: Health insurance isn't the problem.

From what I understand from reading, health insurance is some guy without a degree on the other end of a phone telling your doctor, a man with years of medical training, what procedures he may perform to get you well?

And to you this is not a problem? Or do I misunderstand?

As opposed to the system in Europe where a person with no degree says you are too old and don't have a long enough life expectancy to justify treatment.

mandrsn1: As opposed to the system in Europe where a person with no degree says you are too old and don't have a long enough life expectancy to justify treatment.

[citation needed]

"Europe" doesn't have a single healthcare system; each country has its own. The UK has socialized medicine, and like everything they do, it has issues, most of which are exaggerated by Rupert Murdoch.

Germany, on the other hand has a system that is 90% private-run, but with strict gov't oversight, and their system works quite well.

Let me go find something for you to watch.

Bored Horde: Lots of libs hoping that the fine folks who run the DMV and the USPS will take over running our health care.

God, how I could only wish. My last driver's license renewal took four minutes, door-to-door. I'd *GLADLY* take the worst day I've ever had at the Post Office and DMV combined over the very very VERY best customer service experience I've ever had with Kaiser, UnitedHealth, Aetna, or any other health insurer.

No question about that. Comparing US health care to the most reliable and cheapest postal system on planet earth? Really?

We're not comparing Kafka to some Marcus Welby MD heaven now.

Hobodeluxe: we need real reform. single-payer universal healthcare. like the civilized nations do it. we pay more for less. just cut the middleman out and we save money and the businesses (other than insurance) saves money.

Obama's proposed half assed measure is nowhere near what it needs ot be. but he can't beat the lobbyists and their hired legislators on both sides of the aisle. So he's compromising. and that will be the reason it won't work.

So, not only do you want the Government to go into the Automobile industry, the banks, you would like health care also. What next, they will be taking over fast food because it is too unhealthy, would take over aviation because the airlines aren't doing well.

Then they will say "think about the children" and take over private education since private school students have advantages that public school students don't.

Oh and lets not forget about nationalizing energy because exxon is making too much money, and nationalizing all hospitals because they don't make enough money due to the above healthcare.