Health Care Reform passes the House

[aoxo1]

And just a little charty goodness more relevant to the thread: Percent of GDP spending on health care

You love this argument, but does it actually show anything if the services aren't any good or you have a 6 month wait for surgery? Moreover wouldn't you expect it to be lower in a place like Canada where salaries of doctors and nurses aren't set by the free market? Or that the prices for services are set by the government not by what they should cost? Or the fact that they don't use the best equipment because the government wont pay for them? Or the fact that because Canada or other countries set price limits on medicine and device that the US gets gauged even more to pay for these products? Then again we could set our own price controls and destroy the R&D budget for those places.

Ziner, you can pose those questions all you like but the following is a FACT: outcomes are better in those countries. People live longer, healthier lives. Doctors and nurses are well off, and plenty of medical innovation occurs in other countries.

The US health care system is hugely inefficient, insurance companies which add no value reap huge profits. Why, exactly, should US citizens be expected to pay more for worse outcomes than those in other countries?

[idoctribefan]

But ok, the rich pay more. But what is the effective tax rate by income group?

Nice to know the people at the very top pay approximately the same effective rate as the middle.

The people at the very top are making a lot of money via capital gains, which are taxed at 15%. There is the explanation for your epiphanic chart. So to make it more "fair", let's jack up the capital gains tax, kill investment, drive even more corporations overseas and cause the current 10.2% unemployment to skyrocket.

God, I hate rich people.

[aoxo1]

But ok, the rich pay more. But what is the effective tax rate by income group?

Nice to know the people at the very top pay approximately the same effective rate as the middle.

The people at the very top are making a lot of money via capital gains, which are taxed at 15%. There is the explanation for your epiphanic chart. So to make it more "fair", let's jack up the capital gains tax, kill investment, drive even more corporations overseas and cause the current 10.2% unemployment to skyrocket.

God, I hate rich people.

Because the 1990s were such a terrible time. Lowering the cap gains tax in 2003 really helped, eh?

Further, the above chart is on earned income; if you were to include capital gains, which are not earned income, their rates are much lower. If we actually tracked wealth, all of the above charts would be more extreme. But don't take it from me, take it from the Oracle himself.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

But don't let your misconceptions get in the way. It is important that earned income gotten through actually working be taxed at a significantly higher rate than income earned through... having lots of money already. We wouldn't want those heirs and heiresses to have to pay the same rates as us plebes, would we?

[jb]

But ok, the rich pay more. But what is the effective tax rate by income group?

Nice to know the people at the very top pay approximately the same effective rate as the middle.

The people at the very top are making a lot of money via capital gains, which are taxed at 15%. There is the explanation for your epiphanic chart. So to make it more "fair", let's jack up the capital gains tax, kill investment, drive even more corporations overseas and cause the current 10.2% unemployment to skyrocket.

God, I hate rich people.

Because the 1990s were such a terrible time. Lowering the cap gains tax in 2003 really helped, eh?

Further, the above chart is on earned income; if you were to include capital gains, which are not earned income, their rates are much lower. If we actually tracked wealth, all of the above charts would be more extreme. But don't take it from me, take it from the Oracle himself.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

But don't let your misconceptions get in the way. It is important that earned income gotten through actually working be taxed at a significantly higher rate than income earned through... having lots of money already. We wouldn't want those heirs and heiresses to have to pay the same rates as us plebes, would we?

"Yes. Yes we would."

- The Hapsburgh Empire

[jfiling]

Why is it that so many people can't find a solution that doesn't resolve with the notion that the wealth of this country's citizens is fodder for government programs?

I'm not super-rich, nor will I ever be, but I am able to come up with a thought experiment:

Let's say Conrad Hilton discovered a process by which he became immortal. Let's also imagine that he decided to hoard his wealth, while giving allowances to his heirs from the interest his wealth gained. When, and by what moral authority, does the government gain a claim to his wealth?

And furthermore, how is this any different from his wealth, upon which taxes have already been paid, being confiscated by taxes JB wants, with heirs and heiresses being punished for being born to someone who contributed to our economy? Unless you think the US would be better off without the Hilton Hotel chain (and, as necessary for this example, nothing to replace it).

[Ziner]

Let's say Conrad Hilton discovered a process by which he became immortal.

Irrelevant, he would have killed himself when he saw the video of his skank granddaughter

Seriously though good points.

[Ziner]

And just a little charty goodness more relevant to the thread: Percent of GDP spending on health care

You love this argument, but does it actually show anything if the services aren't any good or you have a 6 month wait for surgery? Moreover wouldn't you expect it to be lower in a place like Canada where salaries of doctors and nurses aren't set by the free market? Or that the prices for services are set by the government not by what they should cost? Or the fact that they don't use the best equipment because the government wont pay for them? Or the fact that because Canada or other countries set price limits on medicine and device that the US gets gauged even more to pay for these products? Then again we could set our own price controls and destroy the R&D budget for those places.

Ziner, you can pose those questions all you like but the following is a FACT: outcomes are better in those countries. People live longer, healthier lives. Doctors and nurses are well off, and plenty of medical innovation occurs in other countries.

The US health care system is hugely inefficient, insurance companies which add no value reap huge profits. Why, exactly, should US citizens be expected to pay more for worse outcomes than those in other countries?

Man, so touchy just because I hacked up your little chart. You didn't address a single point I brought up, but thats ok, we can move on.

You think insurance companies cause the inefficiency and the government is going to fix that, hilarious.

You are right the current system is inefficient and things need to be changed, however what in this bill even addresses bringing costs down? Secondly as much as the insurance companies are in the back pocket of the GOP, the lawyers are in the back pocket of the dems, tell me how any reasonable bill doesnt include some sort of tort reform or helps doctors reduce their current malpractice insurance.

Finally, lets face it. The US props the world up in many aspects. We provide more aid to other countries than anyone. Our military strength saves other countries tons of money as they know we would be there for them. Very much the same we do this in the medical field and health care as well. Where is progress made? It aint Canada and their socialized medicine, it isnt the UK, it isnt France. The US has the best Pharma and medical device companies in the world and they thrive in the United States capital markets with the lure of huge profits. Thats the key, the lure of those profits are what makes these big strides, not the goodness of their hearts. It seem as if you dismiss capitalism in every way, you are for socialized medicine, you play the class warfare game and want to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Here is a little article for you since you seem to think our health care system is such a wreck and think we should switch to one of the vastly superior system of many european nations and canada from which we get "plenty" of innovation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

So now that I have covered longer healthy living and "plenty" of innovation, lets tackle the doctors and nurses doing fine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/inter ... 7WIND.html

The two surgeons are sharply critical of Canada's health care system, which is driven by government-financed insurance for all but increasingly rations service because of various technological and personnel shortages. Both doctors said they were fed up with a two-tier medical system in which those with connections go to the head of the line for surgery.

Meanwhile, there are signs that a brain drain of medical talent, particularly specialists to the United States, is becoming a serious problem.

There was a net migration of 49 neurosurgeons from Canada from 1996 to 2002, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a large loss given that there are only 241 neurosurgeons in the country.

"Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions," said Dr. Sunil V. Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association, who attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment. "That burnout causes them to retire early or pull away from certain kinds of work or simply leave."

Yes they love practicing there!

Oh and I hope you appreciate that I dug through until I found a liberal friendly source to use.

[FUDU]

aoxo appreciate the graphs and what not, and to you and JB I agree the rich get away with plenty as well. Although is a fair solution simply to tax them more b/c they have more or are more, in terms of financial existence? IMO no.

The big crux of all these little snippets of issues when relating to taking and giving is personal choice. There are truly needy out there, there are people who cannot support themselves regardless of how much effort they put forth. Let's define them, let's acknowledge them and separate them from those who CAN support themselves but choose not to. Let's not allow those with means to shortcut the system for only their personal gain.

Another quick IE. Growing up and living where I do I have the luxury (sometimes anyway) of knowing many police and fireman. You know how it goes, they are all supposed "good guys" just trying to live life like the rest of us. Well through a mutual friend I learned of one local fireman (who has a working wife and some kids) that simply stopped paying on their home in the midst of all this recent housing market crisis. Not a they couldn't afford to deal, they simply stopped paying on it. From what I heard it was in foresight of the upcoming residency laws changing and b/c there was such a low risk of repercussions if one didn't make the payments on their home. They flat out choose to say fuck it we don't care. Well they got their way, got out of the house, got a newer home in suburb that is worth more in a better school system. My understanding is nothing has happened to them from pulling such a stunt. They are white (not that it matters) and they were not poor before hand.

Explain to me how that guy shouldn't get punched in the face, by all of us, one at a time.

A guy makes $50K and doesn't have health care, let's find out why, if it is just b/c then tough shit for him, he gets nothing from us.

I never liked the humane argument JB brought up earlier b/c we are very humane in this country with our HC. For starters we allow people who have no right to be here walk in to our hospitals and give birth to a baby (@ $8500 a pop) and then by law allow that child to stay and have a free education. Meanwhile we have veterans who cannot get quality health care. You going to tell me that is NOT backwards. Nobody against this crap we call HC reform is suggesting to be inhumane, we are just suggesting to ask for accountability, no demanding accountability.

The numbers that get thrown around on this are also BS. First it started with 45 million Americans have no HC, puhlease. 1/6 of our population doesn't have HC, yeah whatever. Then it is spun to suggest that number represents the needy that don't have it. So again 1/6 of our population is needy? No truth in our so called facts. Problem is we have created a country that is too sensitive to being called lazy POS.

[jb]

Why is it that so many people can't find a solution that doesn't resolve with the notion that the wealth of this country's citizens is fodder for government programs?

I'm not super-rich, nor will I ever be, but I am able to come up with a thought experiment:

Let's say Conrad Hilton discovered a process by which he became immortal. Let's also imagine that he decided to hoard his wealth, while giving allowances to his heirs from the interest his wealth gained. When, and by what moral authority, does the government gain a claim to his wealth?

And furthermore, how is this any different from his wealth, upon which taxes have already been paid, being confiscated by taxes JB wants, with heirs and heiresses being punished for being born to someone who contributed to our economy? Unless you think the US would be better off without the Hilton Hotel chain (and, as necessary for this example, nothing to replace it).

What was "better" for most of the US citizens?

The 1950's or the 1880's?

You'd have loved the guilded era.

[aoxo1]

Man, so touchy just because I hacked up your little chart. You didn't address a single point I brought up, but thats ok, we can move on.

I'm not sure what is so touchy about responding to your paragraph of questions, which had nothing to back them up, with a few truths.

You think insurance companies cause the inefficiency and the government is going to fix that, hilarious.

An apples-to-apples comparison would not leave you with the 2 percent of total Medicare spending often bandied about in debate...A more straightforward estimate, according to experts I've spoken to, would be in the range of 5 to 6 percent.

Nor is it easy to measure administrative costs among private insurers. For one thing, which private insurers? When the Congressional Budget Office examined this issue, it found that administrative costs -- including advertising and profits -- accounted for 12 percent of the average insurer's dollar. But that hid substantial variation among insurers. Among employer-based plans, the largest firms had the lowest costs. Plans covering companies with at least 1,000 employees had a mere 7 percent in administrative costs. Those covering companies with fewer than 25 employees spent 26 percent of premiums on administration. And the individual market was a mess: 30 percent.

This is actually not as bad as I thought, although it demonstrates how horribly inefficient the individual market is.

You are right the current system is inefficient and things need to be changed, however what in this bill even addresses bringing costs down? Secondly as much as the insurance companies are in the back pocket of the GOP, the lawyers are in the back pocket of the dems, tell me how any reasonable bill doesnt include some sort of tort reform or helps doctors reduce their current malpractice insurance.

Let's be fair, both the Dems and the Repubs are in the back pockets of both the insurance industry and the trial lawyers.

I don't really think this bill will bring down costs much. It does seem like a big giveaway to insurers to me.

I have no qualms with tort reform; not sure why you assumed I do.

Finally, lets face it. The US props the world up in many aspects. We provide more aid to other countries than anyone.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... DA_GNI.png

Our military strength saves other countries tons of money as they know we would be there for them.

I agree with this. And don't get me started on our military spending

Very much the same we do this in the medical field and health care as well. Where is progress made? It aint Canada and their socialized medicine, it isnt the UK, it isnt France.

Top 10 Pharmaceutical companies by revenue:
1 Novartis Switzerland 53,324 7,125 11,053 138,000
2 Pfizer USA 48,371 7,599 19,337 122,200
3 Bayer Germany 44,200 1,791 6,450 106,200
4 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom 42,813 6,373 10,135 106,000
5 Johnson and Johnson USA 37,020 5,349 7,202 102,695
6 Sanofi-Aventis France 35,645 5,565 5,033 100,735
7 Hoffmann–La Roche Switzerland 33,547 5,258 7,318 100,289
8 AstraZeneca UK/Sweden 26,475 3,902 6,063 50,000+
9 Merck & Co. USA 22,636 4,783 4,434 74,372
10 Abbott Laboratories USA 22,476 2,255 1,717 66,800

The US has the best Pharma and medical device companies in the world and they thrive in the United States capital markets with the lure of huge profits. Thats the key, the lure of those profits are what makes these big strides, not the goodness of their hearts.

So let's even up the playing field. Why is it OK for Europe, which is just as wealthy as the US, to ride our coattails, if that is indeed what is happening?

It seem as if you dismiss capitalism in every way, you are for socialized medicine, you play the class warfare game and want to take from the rich and give to the poor.

You are better than this. Despite all the hand wringing by many on the right, capitalism is not extinct everywhere but the US. I am not playing class warfare, except to the extent that people in this thread were blaming everything on the poor and I responded by showing that the money has been flowing upwards, not down over the past 30 years.

I have avoided name calling in this thread, so don't go down the road of calling me a communist or socialist.

Here is a little article for you since you seem to think our health care system is such a wreck and think we should switch to one of the vastly superior system of many european nations and canada from which we get "plenty" of innovation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

I'm glad you have provided information showing that 43% of medical research is funded by the government. Why do you hate capitalism?

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

American universities? You mean the same ones that are largely public universities? And whose research grants are overwhelmingly from the government? SOCIALISTS!

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

If we accept that this is true, we are still spending far more than these other countries without living longer.
Personal happiness? Do a google search on happiest countries, and you'll find lists similar to this:
The 20 happiest nations in the World are:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada
11. Ireland
12. Luxembourg
13. Costa Rica
14. Malta
15. The Netherlands
16. Antigua and Barbuda
17. Malaysia
18. New Zealand
19. Norway
20. The Seychelles

Other notable results include:

23. USA
35. Germany
41. UK
62. France
82. China
90. Japan
125. India
167. Russia

The three least happy countries were:

176. Democratic Republic of the Congo
177. Zimbabwe
178. Burundi

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

Really? This is nothing more than unsupported drivel, and even if true represents a huge waste of resources.

So now that I have covered longer healthy living and "plenty" of innovation, lets tackle the doctors and nurses doing fine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/inter ... 7WIND.html

The two surgeons are sharply critical of Canada's health care system, which is driven by government-financed insurance for all but increasingly rations service because of various technological and personnel shortages. Both doctors said they were fed up with a two-tier medical system in which those with connections go to the head of the line for surgery.

Meanwhile, there are signs that a brain drain of medical talent, particularly specialists to the United States, is becoming a serious problem.

There was a net migration of 49 neurosurgeons from Canada from 1996 to 2002, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a large loss given that there are only 241 neurosurgeons in the country.

"Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions," said Dr. Sunil V. Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association, who attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment. "That burnout causes them to retire early or pull away from certain kinds of work or simply leave."

Ever ask a physician here how much he loves practicing here and spending all of his time dealing with insurance companies? They love practicing here, too. http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/17/news/ec ... /index.htm

Yes they love practicing there!

Oh and I hope you appreciate that I dug through until I found a liberal friendly source to use.

I do appreciate it.

That said, I think we can agree to disagree on this. We could likely go back and forth indefinitely, each finding sources.

There is no perfect solution, but the present course is unsustainable. 60% of bankruptcies (800,000 per year) are medical related. Nearly 50,000 people die for lack of insurance every year. Costs are increasing at 2.4% more than inflation. I don't know the answer, but I do know that these problems aren't nearly as prevalent everywhere else.

[Cease]

Good debate guys, I'm playing along at home.

If we are going to compare country to country and make statements like "spending far more than these other countries without living longer," we've really got to open up the comparison and look at the leading causes of health problem in the US and how they compare to the leading health problem causes of said countries.

The leading US risk factors of tobacco, poor diet, lack of physical excersise, and high stress are not universally equal. I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but we've got a pretty unique skill set when it comes to causes of health problems (which in turn lead to the need for health care). What role does the government have in addressing these causes in the interest of tax-savings for the citizen? And now a Bill Maher moment- if government medical spending and pharmacuticals buoy such a massive economic driver, isn't there an inherant economic downside to a healthy populus?

Carry on.

[aoxo1]

Good debate guys, I'm playing along at home.

If we are going to compare country to country and make statements like "spending far more than these other countries without living longer," we've really got to open up the comparison and look at the leading causes of health problem in the US and how they compare to the leading health problem causes of said countries.

The leading US risk factors of tobacco, poor diet, lack of physical excersise, and high stress are not universally equal. I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but we've got a pretty unique skill set when it comes to causes of health problems (which in turn lead to the need for health care). What role does the government have in addressing these causes in the interest of tax-savings for the citizen? And now a Bill Maher moment- if government medical spending and pharmacuticals buoy such a massive economic driver, isn't there an inherant economic downside to a healthy populus?

Carry on.

Certainly our lifestyle plays into it, fast food culture and all that. But do you think smoking is a bigger problem here than in Europe?

Those Europeans suck em down like they are running out.
"Western Europe's average smoking rate of 34% to the U.S. level of 23%."

[Ziner]

I am not playing class warfare, except to the extent that people in this thread were blaming everything on the poor and I responded by showing that the money has been flowing upwards, not down over the past 30 years.

no one was blaming anything on the poor. I and no one else I have read have a problem helping the poor, I just dont want to help the lazy. That is what you are misinterpreting. There are too many people who can afford health care but dont want to change their lifestyle for it. For those people I say tough shit. Like FUDU said, identify those people who truly cant afford it and help them, create a market for people with pre-existing conditions and help them. No one wants to see poor people die or people with preexisting conditions get screwed. I just dont feel alot of compassion for people who dont want to pony up for health insurance and would instead be lazy or cheap. I know too many of them, they don't deserve our money for something they can afford.

That said, I think we can agree to disagree on this. We could likely go back and forth indefinitely, each finding sources.

You're right, at least we can unite on our hate of Mangini, thats something that can bring everyone together. Besides I should get to work instead of looking up all this stuff, I have others health insurance to pay for

[aoxo1]

You're right, at least we can unite on our hate of Mangini, thats something that can bring everyone together. Besides I should get to work instead of looking up all this stuff, I have others health insurance to pay for

Good point.

[aoxo1]

DU: How would you suggest we identify the truly needy? It seems like the best way to do this would be to have a sliding scale of premiums based on wages. Sure, there will be people who don't necessarily need the help getting it, but that seems inevitable to me without an army of private detectives?

[Cease]

Good debate guys, I'm playing along at home.

If we are going to compare country to country and make statements like "spending far more than these other countries without living longer," we've really got to open up the comparison and look at the leading causes of health problem in the US and how they compare to the leading health problem causes of said countries.

The leading US risk factors of tobacco, poor diet, lack of physical excersise, and high stress are not universally equal. I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but we've got a pretty unique skill set when it comes to causes of health problems (which in turn lead to the need for health care). What role does the government have in addressing these causes in the interest of tax-savings for the citizen? And now a Bill Maher moment- if government medical spending and pharmacuticals buoy such a massive economic driver, isn't there an inherant economic downside to a healthy populus?

Carry on.

Certainly our lifestyle plays into it, fast food culture and all that. But do you think smoking is a bigger problem here than in Europe?

Those Europeans suck em down like they are running out.
"Western Europe's average smoking rate of 34% to the U.S. level of 23%."

No, each of these factors vary by country. Other countries may have larger factors that aren't major here. Point being that I'm not as convinced we're "wasting" health care dollars and not getting a return on it as I'm concerned that we have to spend so much health care as a nation.

[idoctribefan]

Still, this bill shows just how completely out of touch most of Washington is with the people of this county. We should just rename the country the United Socialist States of America and get it over with.

I guess those town hall meetings and tea parties didn't mean anything to most of those representatives.

We are going to get this shitbag of a bill because Harry Reid is going to use the nuclear option. He knows he's probably toast in 2010 anyway so he might as well do it.

Elections have consequences. Stupid fucking Republicans if you actually acted like conservatives instead of this total shit that you did in the 2000s we wouldn't be in the mess we are right now.

I know, if the politicians were more in touch with America they would have included a much stronger public option.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02451.html

We can't trust most of these polls. Always need to consider the source. Remember, most of the polls said Kerry was going to beat Dubya 5 years ago.

Here is a poll that says the exact opposite of your Washington Post poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

"Although House Passes Health Care, Most Voters Still Oppose the Legislation"

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Most (52%) remain opposed.

Only 25% Strongly Support the plan while 42% are Strongly Opposed. "

[Orenthal]

It removes the profit inefficiency from cost models and should run at cost for the non-subsidized populations. If the for profits don't run leaner, and keep operating in a state of hyperinflation, they won't be able to compete.

You know I wasn't a Psych or sociology major, dual major accounting and economics, but something about this thought just baffles me... I am really going to have to let this sink in b4 I go nuclear, because I don't wanna jump to any rigid predetermined conclusions...

[jfiling]

Why is it that so many people can't find a solution that doesn't resolve with the notion that the wealth of this country's citizens is fodder for government programs?

I'm not super-rich, nor will I ever be, but I am able to come up with a thought experiment:

Let's say Conrad Hilton discovered a process by which he became immortal. Let's also imagine that he decided to hoard his wealth, while giving allowances to his heirs from the interest his wealth gained. When, and by what moral authority, does the government gain a claim to his wealth?

And furthermore, how is this any different from his wealth, upon which taxes have already been paid, being confiscated by taxes JB wants, with heirs and heiresses being punished for being born to someone who contributed to our economy? Unless you think the US would be better off without the Hilton Hotel chain (and, as necessary for this example, nothing to replace it).

What was "better" for most of the US citizens?

The 1950's or the 1880's?

You'd have loved the guilded era.

First of all, I'm glad you didn't take me using you in that post as trying to call you out or something, because I worried about it after I hit "post".

Regarding comparing the 1880's versus the 1950's, it's difficult. Two post-war periods, with civil rights issues abounding don't strike me as particularly pleasurable to live in. If forced to choose which was "better" for most US citizens I'd have to pick the 1950's. In relation to this thread, the 1950's saw the greatest increase in expected life span in recorded history, without the need for universal health care.

[aoxo1]

Regarding comparing the 1880's versus the 1950's, it's difficult. Two post-war periods, with civil rights issues abounding don't strike me as particularly pleasurable to live in. If forced to choose which was "better" for most US citizens I'd have to pick the 1950's. In relation to this thread, the 1950's saw the greatest increase in expected life span in recorded history, without the need for universal health care.

No, it isn't. Always choose the later date. Cars, radio, television, airplanes, telephones, vaccines, penicillin etc etc.

I know that wasn't the point of JB's question, but my stock answer to when I would want to live is: as far into the future as possible.

[FUDU]

DU: How would you suggest we identify the truly needy? It seems like the best way to do this would be to have a sliding scale of premiums based on wages. Sure, there will be people who don't necessarily need the help getting it, but that seems inevitable to me without an army of private detectives?

Not ignoring you, just haven't had time to give you a worthy response.

[FUDU]

DU: How would you suggest we identify the truly needy? It seems like the best way to do this would be to have a sliding scale of premiums based on wages. Sure, there will be people who don't necessarily need the help getting it, but that seems inevitable to me without an army of private detectives?

Thought about this a few times this past week, I don't have a good solution myself. I would think it would start with looking at a person's income at some point. You are correct in that of course there would be some people slip through the cracks for both cases of getting help when they don't deserve/need it and vice versa. Our so called representatives are the ones who should be able to come up with something to determine who the truly needy are, they are the ones privy to the necessary data required to make such a distinction.

My biggest concern is asking the right questions and doing this right the first time, IMO we are not even close to doing so with this issue.

It seems that our "representatives" are just trying to pass a bill, to say they passed a bill.

Very dangerous.

[jb]

Anyone watch the end of life and cost segment on 60 minutes?

curious on any opinion.

[FUDU]

Anyone watch the end of life and cost segment on 60 minutes?

curious on any opinion.

Missed it, didn't know anything about it being on.

Please share.

[FUDU]

JB there is little doubt in my mind that there will be a day in which we simply use an algorithm to determine whether we keep the old and/or sick alive. A 20 something working there way through their 7 year college education will simply enter data specs with their keyboard. Age, weight, sex, medical issues/history, employment history, criminal history and last but not least their ability to earn income and be legitimate fiscal contributor to society.

We'll enter all sorts of info in to get the computer to spit out a simple number that correlates to a statistic that relates to a thumbs up or a thumbs down on whether or not to keep alive. That day may not be for 25, 100 or 300 years but it will come.

[aoxo1]

My guess is that 60 minutes had a segment about the fact we spend more on the last 6 months of life than all the rest combined (or something like that). Don't remember if that is the right comparison, but it's something like that.

[FUDU]

I went & watched a little bit of it on their site, read about the rest. Sounds to me that studies have shown we spend tens of billions of dollars a year on the last 2-3 months of people's lives (across all age demographics) and that most of the efforts are ultimately ineffective. Nearly all of the money spent comes from the federal government as reported through 60 Minutes.

The rest I leave you to watch/read for yourself I will not paraphrase and misinform.

But IMO that is exactly the type of stuff that will ignite the discussion someday on coming up with a one size fits all formula to use to determine whether or not we keep people alive.

I would bet my life on it that it will happen.

[Orenthal]

Is "tens of billions" in spending on your people really worth selling out to a quick fix medical plan? One which has a price tag in the hundreds of billion, but more like trillions? One which will still have the government on the hook, but for far more. This debate stinks...

Smells like a typical gov't problem. Have a $1 dollar issue? Throw $100 at it to fix... errrr create more problems that will need fixed.

[FUDU]

Is "tens of billions" in spending on your people really worth selling out to a quick fix medical plan? One which has a price tag in the hundreds of billion, but more like trillions? One which will still have the government on the hook, but for far more. This debate stinks...

Agreed it all sucks.

However since it is about "health care" that will be the reason something gets stuffed down the throats of the American people regardless of the merits of the plan. B/C people really buy into the doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how ineffective or bad the doing something is.

[Orenthal]

Is "tens of billions" in spending on your people really worth selling out to a quick fix medical plan? One which has a price tag in the hundreds of billion, but more like trillions? One which will still have the government on the hook, but for far more. This debate stinks...

Agreed it all sucks.

However since it is about "health care" that will be the reason something gets stuffed down the throats of the American people regardless of the merits of the plan. B/C people really buy into the doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how ineffective or bad the doing something is.

Until someone in one of the parties stands up and says that doing nothing is better then shoving crap legislation down our throats we will continue to get this bs...

It's too bad that it is the President is most likely the guy to do it since Congress is in the business of passing legislation. This guy, and the past guy didn't feel the need to stop anything!!!

[FUDU]

Until someone in one of the parties stands up and says that doing nothing is better then shoving crap legislation down our throats we will continue to get this bs...

It's too bad that it is the President is most likely the guy to do it since Congress is in the business of passing legislation. This guy, and the past guy didn't feel the need to stop anything!!!


Report this post

For a guy like me everything is just fine for now. Do I wish my insurance didn't cost as much as it does, of course. But I am pretty healthy, make sound choices in regards to my health and pay $1300 a year. I cannot call that completely unreasonable. So IMO move on to the next person, let's analyze their situation, b/c I'm good and can get by with my situation as is. However what gets a guy like myself pissed off about all this is that I am as I described above and yet on an unrelated matter like the housing stuff I am getting screwed from that angle as well. You're gonna take from me to give to others on both issues....BS. So I get pissed at the system and want nothing to do with any of it. Is that wrong?

[stonepm]

[quote="FUDU"]I went & watched a little bit of it on their site, read about the rest. Sounds to me that studies have shown we spend tens of billions of dollars a year on the last 2-3 months of people's lives (across all age demographics) and that most of the efforts are ultimately ineffective. Nearly all of the money spent comes from the federal government as reported through 60 Minutes.
quote]
But wait...I thought all these people were dying cuz they are denied health care or they don't have insurance or they couldn't afford it or...

[FUDU]

But wait...I thought all these people were dying cuz they are denied health care or they don't have insurance or they couldn't afford it or...

Two entirely separate issues within the single debate itself.

Even people with insurance die within the care of the system, not sure if that comes as a big newsflash to you or not. Also the ones without insurance still get cared for by the system (a big problem in the debate IMO). Now getting to the bottom of just how many are not insured is a worthy cause IMO. B/c there is not much worse than passing an important piece of legislature like this based on erroneous information. I mean we've already done the whole let's make a law thing based upon a lie.

[Ziner]

Support continues to decline

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

Found this tidbit interesting though

Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed

I would have assumed those would be the opposite of what they are.

[exiledbuckeye]

Support continues to decline

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

Found this tidbit interesting though

Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed

I would have assumed those would be the opposite of what they are.

Old folks already have national health care, and a national pension. Seems to be a case of "I got mine, none for you".

I'd love to be able to see the crosstabs for the rest of the demographics. I'm sure the opposition % is not quite as high as it is for the oldies.

[stonepm]

Old folks already have national health care, and a national pension. Seems to be a case of "I got mine, none for you".

Since old people have to have supplemental insurance policies to cover what medicare doesn't (which is a lot more than you'd think) plus I don't think very many people live off of what they get from SS alone, I doubt that is their reason for opposition.

[exiledbuckeye]

Old folks already have national health care, and a national pension. Seems to be a case of "I got mine, none for you".

Since old people have to have supplemental insurance policies to cover what medicare doesn't (which is a lot more than you'd think) plus I don't think very many people live off of what they get from SS alone, I doubt that is their reason for opposition.

And yet, many old folks do exactly that. Live off of SS and don't buy supplemental insurance. Same reason so many of them are opposed to SS reform. They're afraid that if we fix it for younger generations, they'll have to give up some of what they currently get.

[Orenthal]

Old folks already have national health care, and a national pension. Seems to be a case of "I got mine, none for you".

Since old people have to have supplemental insurance policies to cover what medicare doesn't (which is a lot more than you'd think) plus I don't think very many people live off of what they get from SS alone, I doubt that is their reason for opposition.

And yet, many old folks do exactly that. Live off of SS and don't buy supplemental insurance. Same reason so many of them are opposed to SS reform. They're afraid that if we fix it for younger generations, they'll have to give up some of what they currently get.

I'd have to see numbers and trends. To me it would seem the people who were sold as that being their retirement plan should be shrinking, and being replaced by those informed that it would not continue to fund their lifestyle and found other methods to supplement that income. Again are we fixing something that affects a small proportion of people, yet the majority are using the program as intended? Just like the tens of billions on yer last 6 months, the 20-40 million uninsured of which many are illegals or young and choose to forgo coverage, and now this...

Again spend 1 trillion to solve a 100 billion or less problem?