Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

> My bet is it will be as bad as trying to get SSD a 2 year wait.

In which case, you could use your own doctor and pay as much as you like.

Except that you won't have as much money to pay for it with, because you'll be paying into the national healthcare system. I mean, why not make people pay for something they don't use--sounds terribly efficient, doesn't it?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

In which case, you could use your own doctor and pay as much as you like.

Then whats the point of government health insurance if when you need care you have to pay for it out of pocket?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Good grief...after witnessing how the government has handled Stimulus I, II, the car companies, the banks, and AIG...you want them to decide for your health care?

If the previous government had been competent, this government wouldn't have had to handle any of those things.

Obama's government didn't create the longest recession since the 1930s.

You mean the one that started after the Dems took Congress in '07?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Good grief...after witnessing how the government has handled Stimulus I, II, the car companies, the banks, and AIG...you want them to decide for your health care?

If the previous government had been competent, this government wouldn't have had to handle any of those things.

Obama's government didn't create the longest recession since the 1930s.

You mean the one that started after the Dems took Congress in '07?

Economic cycles are very long and complex. It's unfair to decide that whichever party is in whatever part of the power structure is responsible. The truth is that we're going to experience economic cycles forever, regardless of who is in charge. Trying to pin down what causes them is an endless debate, and trying to determine if it was something done 2 minutes, 2 months, 2 years, or 2 decades ago is even harder.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,118]

>Then whats the point of government health insurance if when you
>need care you have to pay for it out of pocket?

You may have nothing in your pocket, in which case government health care is better than no health care at all. Or you can go and see anyone you like if you have the money. Your choice.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You think Social Security is being run well?

Better than some private insurance companies. What other insurance policies have averaged ~7 percent annual return for consumers over the life of the policy? Social Security has.

Then why was Algore saying we needed a 'lockbox' to 'save' SocSec?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,118]

>Except that you won't have as much money to pay for it with, because
>you'll be paying into the national healthcare system.

You already are; it's just not called that. Now it's called "care for the uninsured." It costs around $20 billion a year.

> I mean, why not make people pay for something they don't use?

Do you pay for the CDC?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Then whats the point of government health insurance if when you
>need care you have to pay for it out of pocket?

You may have nothing in your pocket, in which case government health care is better than no health care at all. Or you can go and see anyone you like if you have the money. Your choice.

With all these new 'programs', I hope I have enough change left at the end of the week to buy a hamburger.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,118]

>With all these new 'programs', I hope I have enough change left at the
>end of the week to buy a hamburger.

Yes, America can! (buy a hamburger)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>With all these new 'programs', I hope I have enough change left at the
>end of the week to buy a hamburger.

Yes, America can! (buy a hamburger)

Si, se puede!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Then the doctor comes and tells you "your insurance will cover the surgery needed to fix your pelvis, or we can put you in traction for six months, the outcome will be iffy - but it will be free." What are you going to choose?

Bad example as surgery is far less expensive than a person in the hospital or requiring other care for 6 months.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,118]

>Bad example as surgery is far less expensive than a person in the hospital
>or requiring other care for 6 months.

What care? You get an ambulance ride home and a prescription for a traction kit. Have a nice day! And look at all the money you saved.

What's that you say? You can't work now? That's too bad. Next time consider health insurance.

I've long been an advocate of a two tier system. The lower (funded) tier is minimal emergency care. The upper tier is whatever you want to pay for. That way no one is left to die in the streets, which is the minimum we as a society should provide. Beyond that, get out your wallet.

[wmw999 2,588]

Even with health insurance as it stands now there are people who pay over and above what their insurance covers to get specific doctors or services. Some doctors no longer deal with insurance providers, and some are "out of network" which means that people just pay more.

So within the insured, there's a two-tier system. Frankly, no, there's nothing wrong with that.

I have an acquaintance who broke a leg with either no or minimal insurance. They rode in a car to the hospital, and when the doctor said they had to wait a few days for surgery, they went home instead of staying in the hospital. Significant savings. Less convenient, yes. But money is what pays for convenience.

And I believe the bill is mostly paid already, even with the surgery.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Obama's government didn't create the longest recession since the 1930s.

And yet they've done more to prolong it than any of the previous administrations.

And by 'Obama's government' do you mean the democrats?

The same democrats that have made up roughly half of the congress for the last decade or so?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

You think Social Security is being run well?

Better than some private insurance companies. What other insurance policies have averaged ~7 percent annual return for consumers over the life of the policy? Social Security has.

My insurance company isn't $11,000,000,000,000 in the hole.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Obama's government didn't create the longest recession since the 1930s.

And yet they've done more to prolong it than any of the previous administrations

That's an interesting claim. As unprovable as any, given the Administration isn't 5 months old.

Quote

And by 'Obama's government' do you mean the democrats?

The same democrats that have made up roughly half of the congress for the last decade or so?

That's an interesting form of math, but devoid of any critical thinking. Majority plus same party President - 2001-2007, 2009-current is radically different than having < 50%, and no President.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I am for the government running HEALTH CARE, as well as education, the military, social services, and a few other things.

None of which are run well. ...and you know it.

So, you think all doctors should be federal employees? How will Pharmaceuticals develop goods on the open market if there is no competition or innovation because there is no incentive to do so (only incentive to contain costs)...

Quote

So no, I am not for the government running drop zones, car companies, gun manufacturing, widgets or whatever else private business shoudl be involved in.

SO we disagree on where the line is drawn on what is a right and what is a privilege or 'business'

So, if health care is a business, why have the government run it. It's certainly not a "right".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If it were working, it would be earning a positive return on the largest investment fund ever created in human history.

As in, say, ~7% annual return? Oh wait, it does.

What was Bernie Madoff's "return" ?

If you are earning a return, then your principal is still intact, and you've added to it. Bernie Madoff told people they were earning a "return" but it turned out that the principal was all gone. Social Security works exactly the same way.

We haven't begun paying SS benefits with the trust fund. The principle is growing.

No it's not. Congress spends the excess every year. Once the current obligation is funded, Congress pisses away the rest.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>So, you think all doctors should be federal employees?

Nope, only the ones that want to be (which is how things are now.)

>How will Pharmaceuticals develop goods on the open market if there is no
>competition or innovation because there is no incentive to do so (only
>incentive to contain costs)...

Same way they do now - by investing in drugs that will make them a lot of money. It's not a great way to do things (gives you more Viagras than reverse transcription inhibitors) but it's not bad.

BTW, "containing costs" is something any good business does.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Are you honestly saying that this program would make you more likely to skydive? 99% of skydivers don't consider healthcare when deciding to do something as optional (and as foolish) as skydiving. Do you have evidence that that's not the case?

Hah, you want me to refute a statistic you just made up? I'll pass.

Quote

And again, I don't know many skydivers who think "gee, I can't afford to pay for surgery, so I won't hook turn!" (or get that smaller canopy, or skydive at all.) At best they think about that a few seconds before impact.

I only used skydiving because I didn't think you could relate to the wine bottle ass crowd. My point stands, regardless of how many people you know, simply because nationalized health care removes the price tag consequence of their stupidity.

Quote

And you get emergency care covered - just like you do now, whether or not you can pay for it. Then the doctor comes and tells you "your insurance will cover the surgery needed to fix your pelvis, or we can put you in traction for six months, the outcome will be iffy - but it will be free." What are you going to choose?

My insurance of course. Your argument really speaks well for the efficiency and wisdom of nationalized health care, if those are my options. Thanks for making it.

Quote

So get out your wallet and go to a dentist, already.

If I really needed it, I would have long ago. I'm only waiting for the VA because it's free, they owe it to me, and it's rarely a bad thing to have another check-up. It's just interesting to see how long it takes.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>So, you think all doctors should be federal employees?

Nope, only the ones that want to be (which is how things are now.)

That's not part of a nationalized health care system though.

Quote

>How will Pharmaceuticals develop goods on the open market if there is no
>competition or innovation because there is no incentive to do so (only
>incentive to contain costs)...

Same way they do now - by investing in drugs that will make them a lot of money. It's not a great way to do things (gives you more Viagras than reverse transcription inhibitors) but it's not bad.

BTW, "containing costs" is something any good business does.

Wrong. You can't compete with the government. The politics will always protect itself. That means that private sector insurance will not be able to generate the open market that pharmaceuticals compete in. Health care, no matter how you slice it, is also a business, and private insurance will not be able (allowed) to advance itself against the government.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>Hah, you want me to refute a statistic you just made up?

Nope, just state if you disagree with it or not, and why. If not, no big deal.

> My point stands, regardless of how many people you know, simply
>because nationalized health care removes the price tag consequence of
>their stupidity.

And again, the claim that more people would (for example) skydive if they didn't have to worry about healthcare is absurd - because, for the most part, they don't worry now.

>My insurance of course.

Thank you for your answer! You have admitted that you would not use the national healthcare system if you had an alternative available, and would instead leave such coverage to those who cannot afford anything else. That's the ideal scenario for such a system.

>If I really needed it, I would have long ago.

Again, that's great. You have the option to get really, really cheap and slow care if you choose it, or faster care if you really need it. Fortunately you don't have to wait if you don't want to, but not everyone is in your boat.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Nope, just state if you disagree with it or not, and why. If not, no big deal.

Disagree. Using Speakers Corner as a sampling group (go ahead, laugh), I'd say health care in some sense or another is on a lot of minds, one way or the other. If you can come up with a more scientific poll, I'm all ears.

Quote

Thank you for your answer! You have admitted that you would not use the national healthcare system if you had an alternative available, and would instead leave such coverage to those who cannot afford anything else. That's the ideal scenario for such a system.

No problem...just being honest. Of course, as an actual taxpayer, I'd prefer to look at it as good a good system that I've already paid for versus a crappy system that I've already paid for.

In the end, I don't view health care as I right, so we're just going to argue in circles here.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

And in any system, if you're rich, you can pay for better care. Your choice has not been removed. The standard for universal basic care goes down, but the number of people who have cost-effective access to it goes up. The option to have additional care won't go away.

DING DING DING DING!!! I think we have winning explanation. People need to stop getting their panties in a bunch. The people who could afford it to begin with with the system in place now, will have all the same luxuries with the new system.

Quote

Maybe, just maybe, reducing that extremely expensive care by replacing it with much less expensive basic care will reduce costs overall.

What a great concept, but then what would all those rich, white, republican insurance company CEO's do with themselves?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I've long been an advocate of a two tier system. The lower (funded) tier is minimal emergency care. The upper tier is whatever you want to pay for. That way no one is left to die in the streets, which is the minimum we as a society should provide. Beyond that, get out your wallet.

This will also lead to two-tier doctors. Government doctors, who charge the amounts set by the government (which will likely to be quite low), and private, who could charge whatever they want, but cannot bill the government. It might actually work if you throw in more incentives - for example, in all countries I live which had national healthcare you cannot get any money by suing a doctor, and they do not carry any malpractice insurance at all. If the doctor is found guilty in malpractice, he might lose the license or even go to jail, but the best compensation you can expect is to recover your court costs. Second, they also run state-owned medical schools. The admission is tough, but the school is free (even pays some tuition), so a newly graduated doctor does not have a 100K+ loan to repay. Streamlined billing could also help.

The things to look for are, in my opinion, the following:

- Preexisting conditions. Usually people with preexisting conditions are also the people who need, or may need pretty expensive medical care. This means the lowest tier should still be good enough to accommodate them, which in turn means this tier will be quite expensive. However it will bear significant part of the costs from the second tier, which may turn it into "health insurance" I had in Russia - you have like 50K reverse deductible, and your insurance pays 100% for everything - no copays - until you reach this amount. After that it doesn't pay for anything. The rationale here is that if you have a small issue, you could get fast and comfortable healthcare, but once you need heart transplant, you probably cannot pay for it anyway so you're on the government now.

- Malpractice lawsuits. Having doctors working for the government will seriously limit - or completely eliminate - any monetary damages. I wonder if there is any socialized healthcare system in this world where one could actually recover like 50M in damages, need to check. Optionally it might have a sticker - like, want to be able to sue a doctor for damages? Pay $500 extra per visit.

- Drug costs. Even a pretty simple drug which cost $5 in other countries may cost over $100 in USA. If you meet a new immigrant coming to USA, they usually carry enough medicine to supply a local hospital for a couple of weeks (another reason is, of course, that you can buy almost everything without prescription there except Schedule 1 and 2). I've read several opinions about the cost of drugs. Some say it sponsors drug research for the entire world, some say it is just big bucks for politicians. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Anyway, it makes little sense to have free doctor visits but having to pay $150 for antibiotics, so this issue should also be covered (and then there's another issue, like should birth control and Viagra be covered too? And if not, who is going to buy $190/month birth control pills?)

There are even more issues, but those I believe are most important to address.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *