Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I mean, the bureaucracy involved for caring for 300 million people is mind-boggling. Given the obesity epidemic in the US, the high rates of AIDS and other ailments, there would have to be tonnes of people on the waiting lists that would dwarf britain's by comparison. While i have used the NHS for dental treatment in Northern Ireland. How much does health insurance cost in the US? then multiply it by 40 million. Shocking amount of money isn't it? i'm pretty sure it will make the defence budget look small by comparison.

I mean, Britain has a bed shortage with regrds to the hospitals.

I confused waiting lists with the lack of beds in britain's nhs hospitals.

Sorry about earlier, but the image of michael moore's agitprop trumpeting free healthcare sticks in one's mind.

to sum it up in heinlein's words: "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

You have two concepts blurred together here and you are ignoring the implications of your objections.

If the people against health care reform in the US use the argument of government rationing claiming health care reform will flood the system with people seeking care, what that implies is, if everyone gets health care the system won't be able to manage the increased demand. So in other words, people making such an argument don't care that millions of people currently have no access to health care.


That's also quite different from saying the government is going to ration care to save money. The implication of complaining about a free lunch ignores the reality of what is currently happening now with people who have no resources. They seek health care in EDs that by law cannot turn them away. Who do you think is paying for the uninsured to go to EDs right now?

And who says the government plan is going to be free? It will likely be another version of an insurance plan people buy into. If there are going to be any subsidies, those same subsidies could be given to people to buy private health insurance. How is that any less of a free lunch?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, and Skeptigirl...
From the whitehouse.gov's new "reality check" site...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1



Has Obama, too, fallen for the "framing" ploy?

I would say it is merely counter framing to respond to the use of falsely framing health care reform as leading to some kind of government rationing. It's like doing away with the 'middle explanation'. I could first argue it isn't rationing, then tell you the same thing occurs with private insurers, or, I can skip the 'middle explanation' and just tell you the private insurers are no different. In addressing the false information via the latter option there, one simply fights fire with fire.


What you are trying to do here, kelly, is argue by some appeal to an authority. I am pointing out why purchasing specific health care coverage is not rationing if then someone interprets the contract and says, this is what you've bought.

Misinterpreting the contract to deny care is a different matter. That isn't rationing, it is cheating someone.

Rationing is when there is a shortage of something and someone sets the rules on who gets it. Not being able to afford something is not the same as rationing. Every kind of medical care gatekeeping is not rationing.

 

[Rolfe]

Let's just summarise this exchange, right from the very beginning.

The point is, most people in Britain, and France, and pretty much all the countries with universal healthcare are also very very happy with what they have. They're even more happy thay they're paying half what Americans are paying.

My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage. So by your statement pretty much all the countries with universal health care are paying $15 per month per person. Really?

Is your employer not paying any of your premium for you?

It's a very large communications company in New York. My wife has over 20 years in the company. Until 5 years ago it was free.

So put that unicorn poo in your pipe and smoke it.

I mean, you're sure that this large communications company doesn't contribute anything on your behalf (which might otherwise be in your pay packet)?

You're sure that none of the tax money you pay goes to fund Medicare or Medicaid?

You're completely confident that you're not liable for any co-pays or deductibles should you ever use the system?

You've got a saddle and bridle for that unicorn?

Are you retarded???

Of course the company pays It is called a benefit, and enticement, to get someone to work for you. Most people , which is sizable, who get insurance through their job pay a small percentage of the total. Yes there is a Medicare tax.I have a $15 co-pay. Happy now??? We still pay $60 per month for insurance.

I was unaware that I had to explain the obvious to you. I will make note of that for future reference.

Let me explain, because it's clear that either you are the one who is retarded, or you are woefully misinformed about healthcare funding in other countries.

My original post referred to the amount per capita which each individual person contributes to our healthcare system. This is, on average, about half the equivalent figure for the USA. (Of course it varies - a young child contributes nothing, while a millionnaire contributes quite a lot, I was taking the average figure.)

So if you're in the USA, you are putting in, on average, twice what someone in Britain is putting in to the healthcare system. In your case this is a combination of personal payments, employer payments, taxes, co-pays and deductibles.

You choose to cherrypick only your personal payments, and claim that this is what you "pay for healthcare". You question whether people in countries with universal healthcare systems can be paying as little as half of this, which you estimate at only $15 a month.

Let me tell you how much everyone in Scotland pays per month (except those who have personal supplementary insurance, which isn't many), by that way of looking at it.

NOTHING AT ALL.

We're often pulled up by US posters when we say that our healthcare is "free". Of course we know it's not free. It's just a shorthand way of saying "free at point of delivery". But by your way of looking at it, that's right. We pay nothing.

We know we pay in tax, yes. But we also know that the amount we pay in tax to fund the entire NHS, which looks after everyone, is slightly less than you pay in tax to fund just Medicare and Medicaid (from which you derive no benefit). We pay no monthly fee at all. Our employers also contribute nothing, except also by way of taxes. We have no co-pay for medical treatment at all, only for dental - and although annual eye examinations are also free, we do have to pay for our glasses.

So can you perhaps now understand the basis of my original statement?

Rolfe.

 

[kellyb]

I would say it is merely counter framing to respond to the use of falsely framing health care reform as leading to some kind of government rationing. It's like doing away with the 'middle explanation'. I could first argue it isn't rationing, then tell you the same thing occurs with private insurers, or, I can skip the 'middle explanation' and just tell you the private insurers are no different. In addressing the false information via the latter option there, one simply fights fire with fire.


What you are trying to do here, kelly, is argue by some appeal to an authority. I am pointing out why purchasing specific health care coverage is not rationing if then someone interprets the contract and says, this is what you've bought.

Misinterpreting the contract to deny care is a different matter. That isn't rationing, it is cheating someone.

Rationing is when there is a shortage of something and someone sets the rules on who gets it. Not being able to afford something is not the same as rationing. Every kind of medical care gatekeeping is not rationing.

Would you argue that NICE doesn't ration?

 

[kellyb]

Let's just summarise this exchange, right from the very beginning.



















Let me explain, because it's clear that either you are the one who is retarded, or you are woefully misinformed about healthcare funding in other countries.

My original post referred to the amount per capita which each individual person contributes to our healthcare system. This is, on average, about half the equivalent figure for the USA. (Of course it varies - a young child contributes nothing, while a millionnaire contributes quite a lot, I was taking the average figure.)

So if you're in the USA, you are putting in, on average, twice what someone in Britain is putting in to the healthcare system. In your case this is a combination of personal payments, employer payments, taxes, co-pays and deductibles.

You choose to cherrypick only your personal payments, and claim that this is what you "pay for healthcare". You question whether people in countries with universal healthcare systems can be paying as little as half of this, which you estimate at only $15 a month.

Let me tell you how much everyone in Scotland pays per month (except those who have personal supplementary insurance, which isn't many), by that way of looking at it.

NOTHING AT ALL.

We're often pulled up by US posters when we say that our healthcare is "free". Of course we know it's not free. It's just a shorthand way of saying "free at point of delivery". But by your way of looking at it, that's right. We pay nothing.

We know we pay in tax, yes. But we also know that the amount we pay in tax to fund the entire NHS, which looks after everyone, is slightly less than you pay in tax to fund just Medicare and Medicaid (from which you derive no benefit). We pay no monthly fee at all. Our employers also contribute nothing, except also by way of taxes. We have no co-pay for medical treatment at all, only for dental - and although annual eye examinations are also free, we do have to pay for our glasses.

So can you perhaps now understand the basis of my original statement?

Rolfe.

I seriously doubt he'll be able to see the flaw in this line of reasoning:

My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage. So by your statement pretty much all the countries with universal health care are paying $15 per month per person. Really?

But we'll see, I guess...

 

[Rolfe]

And you know what? For this very reasonable price of

NOTHING AT ALL (with no co-pay and no deductibles)

we get very good coverage.

• no yearly or lifetime upper limit in spending on an individual
• no exclusion of pre-existing conditions
• all treatment recommended by our doctor provided with the only exclusions being some very expensive interventions of questionable benefit
• freedom to choose or change our doctor at will
• freedom to be treated at any convenient hospital
• coverage completely independent of employment (or unemployment)
• coverage anywhere in Europe on the same basis as a citizen of the country in question
• free participation in national health screening programmes

Oh, there are probably more.

We've tried to find out what such coverage would cost in the USA, from an insurance company, but to no avail. To date, the replies tendered have suggested that no US insurance company is prepared to offer such a plan, at any price.

Rolfe.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Isn't that terrible. I've lived in a country with universal healthcare all my life. So have virtually all the posters on JREF who aren't American. And nobody's been killed (heck, our police force isn't even armed), and if this is hell, all I can say is, it's really comfortable.

Quit with the ad hominem nonsense, and address Moore's actual arguments.

Rolfe.

So do i. Thankfully, i have rarely had to use it.

So, calling a spade a spade is ad hominem.

Michael moore panders to leftist and communist agitprop. His animated short in bowling for columbine was historically inaccurate. He works via agitprop, by trying to appeal to emotion.

He alos described baathists as "minutemen". If that does not show his political leanings, what does?

"nobody's been killed". Do Rhys Jones, Peter Connelly, Damilola taylor, Stephen Lawrence etc. ring a bell? Gun Crime is very bad in britain, yet the police are unarmed.

Britain is sleepwalking into a Police State (ID Cards, DNA database, database on phone and e-mail usage, prevalence in security cameras). Police are even torturing suspects.

 

[Rolfe]

So do i. Thankfully, i have rarely had to use it.

So, calling a spade a spade is ad hominem.

Michael moore panders to leftist and communist agitprop. His animated short in bowling for columbine was historically inaccurate. He works via agitprop, by trying to appeal to emotion.

He alos described baathists as "minutemen". If that does not show his political leanings, what does?

"nobody's been killed". Do Rhys Jones, Peter Connely, Damilola taylor, Stephen Lawrence etc. ring a bell? Gun Crime is very bad in britain, yet the police are unarmed.

Hey, that post could go in the wiki as a perfect example of ad hominem argument.

At no time have you even mentioned anything Moore presented in the film Sicko. Nothing at all. Not a single, solitary factoid, questionable or not.

All you have done is rant against Moore personally, and by implication dismiss anything he says as being wrong.

That is the definition of argumentum ad hominem.

Rolfe.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Hey, that post could go in the wiki as a perfect example of ad hominem argument.

At no time have you even mentioned anything Moore presented in the film Sicko. Nothing at all. Not a single, solitary factoid, questionable or not.

All you have done is rant against Moore personally, and by implication dismiss anything he says as being wrong.

That is the definition of argumentum ad hominem.

Rolfe.

there are not many facts in sicko, apart from a few stunts, a hefty dose of agitprop and trumpeting a sort of utopian healthcare system.

I mean, he is just an agitprop maker.

He lies by omission, by not weighing up the disadvantages as well (waiting lists, bed shortages, high taxes etc.)

Hence, i am calling a spade a spade.

 

[Architect]

So do i. Thankfully, i have rarely had to use it.

So, calling a spade a spade is ad hominem.

Michael moore panders to leftist and communist agitprop. His animated short in bowling for columbine was historically inaccurate. He works via agitprop, by trying to appeal to emotion.

He alos described baathists as "minutemen". If that does not show his political leanings, what does?

As you've been advised several times, start a separate thread and spell out what facts he gets wrong. So far, all I see are some very broad assertions. If a Truther were to do that over on the 9/11 threads, he'd be asked to back it up - and the same goes here.

"nobody's been killed". Do Rhys Jones, Peter Connelly, Damilola taylor, Stephen Lawrence etc. ring a bell? Gun Crime is very bad in britain, yet the police are unarmed.

Evidence? Firm statistics? Evidence of rises (they do exist) and sufficient context to show that, in comparison to other European countries, it's "very bad"? Comparison with gun crime rates? Details of police deaths attributable to not being armed (answer: very few)?

Just as an aside, I'll tell you how it really works here. Each police force has an armed response unit or, for the bigger ones, two or three at any one time. Usually a squad 4 blokes, all with top-end training and semi-automatic weapons. Always on call. And, inner-city London aside, that's all that's required.

Britain is sleepwalking into a Police State (ID Cards, DNA database, database on phone and e-mail usage, prevalence in security cameras). Police are even torturing suspects.

Are you getting your facts from Indymedia or something? Are you aware about the public debate as regards, say, ID Cards (Scottish Government refusing to implement them) of a perceived permanent DNA database? Do you understand how the votes went in Parliament? Have you seen the press accusations of Government spin?

And please, do feel free to provide evidence that torture of suspects is anything other than an extremely rare occurence. But probably in a separate thread. In fact, I'll start one for you.

 

[Architect]

.

He lies by omission, by not weighing up the disadvantages as well (waiting lists, bed shortages, high taxes etc.)

Do you anything by way of evidence to support a claim that waiting lists have an impact on overall clinical outcome? Are you suggesting that there are waiting lists for urgent work? Do you wish to comment on the comparison between waiting lists in, say, the UK and the US?

Likewise, can you flesh out any argument you have regarding (say) acute bed shortages? Do you mean all UHC systems, or do you have anything in in particular you want to focus on?

And finally, evidence that taxes in countries with UHC are significantly higher than those in the US, especially when we take into account the payments US citizens make towards private healthcare?

Really, try this sceptic thing. You might like it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The NHS does not ration health care, the UK public chooses what it is willing to purchase making that decision through their vote, presumably.

That's the collective deciding what's good for the collective.

I'd prefer to make the decisions about my own healthcare myself. If that means I can't get as much cool stuff at Walmart as someone who decides to get no health insurance, oh well.

 

[GreyICE]

That's the collective deciding what's good for the collective.

I'd prefer to make the decisions about my own healthcare myself. If that means I can't get as much cool stuff at Walmart as someone who decides to get no health insurance, oh well.

Really. That's what you think this is about. People buying lots of toys instead of health care.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Do you anything by way of evidence to support a claim that waiting lists have an impact on overall clinical outcome? Are you suggesting that there are waiting lists for urgent work? Do you wish to comment on the comparison between waiting lists in, say, the UK and the US?

Likewise, can you flesh out any argument you have regarding (say) acute bed shortages? Do you mean all UHC systems, or do you have anything in in particular you want to focus on?

And finally, evidence that taxes in countries with UHC are significantly higher than those in the US, especially when we take into account the payments US citizens make towards private healthcare?

Really, try this sceptic thing. You might like it.

you know what. At the moment, i am watching Sicko. I will tell you what i think.
The ~50 million uninsured number does not specify Citizens, residents or illegal immigrants. Just Americans. Illegal immigrants do not check themselves in lest they are reported.

Donna and Larry 4:00-5:00. The Health insurance takes into account risk. Was it family insurance or individual insurance? i am assuming the latter, because it is mentioned Larry had three heart attacks. Health insurance (presumably) works like car insurance. Your Premiums go up every time you use it, am i correct?

Crying children at 7:00. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

The E-mails about HMOs: I agree that the system needs to be reformed, but the taxpayer must not be made to foot the bill for someone who has had, say, a heart attack. As for rejections, it is about credit ratings and reliability.

The List for ineligibility: is that the sole company's policy or does that cover all companies. Again, insurance companies do not take you on if you have high risk.

What michael moore does is take real issues, real issues that affect people in the US, and use them as an ensemble in his agitprop. This sullies the water in the debate over health care reform in the US. Well, thank god for the NHS, which i feel is in need of reform.

All the denials: what percentages are approved and what percentages are denied by the insurance board. And Michael moore also uses the texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Insurance hitman: Indeed, this is in dire need of reform, with regards to small ailments. But any insurance company would look into your past to see if you were a risky client. Insurance companies need money, just like any other form of company to avoid going under. If that compnay goes under, then the ramifications would be worse. But michael moore's phrasing smacks of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

Blame Nixon: when all else fails, blame nixon for everything, from corruption to Rumsfeld, from Oil crises to bush. What moore fails to mention is that Ted Kennedy voted for the bill and actually authored it himself.

Clintons: Michael moore really dumbs it down for the audience by making it look like hillary was a saviour

 

[Darat]

That's the collective deciding what's good for the collective.

I'd prefer to make the decisions about my own healthcare myself. If that means I can't get as much cool stuff at Walmart as someone who decides to get no health insurance, oh well.

Then why wouldn't you want a system like the UK?

 

[Rolfe]

you know what. At the moment, i am watching Sicko. I will tell you what i think.

Just checking, have you watched Sicko previously, or is this your first viewing?

Rolfe.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Just checking, have you watched Sicko previously, or is this your first viewing?

Rolfe.

well, tbh it is my first, but i watched Bowling for Columbine, which was quite innacurate in its presentation, so you can understand why i wouldnt like sicko.

I am updating it as i go along.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Really. That's what you think this is about. People buying lots of toys instead of health care.

A good portion of the population in any event.

There's a certain segment of US citizens that don't have access to healthcare at all and can't afford it and that needs to change. This is about 16 million people. The government can literally go out and buy health insurance for these people for about 80 billion a year (I assumed a health insurance plan costing 5000 a year, more than what mine costs). Come up with a financial means to motivate these folks to find their own health insurance plan and I would be all for it.

To use Walmart again, they REALLY need to start providing their employees (yes all of them) insurance. All employers needs to at least give the their employees the option of healthcare. Sure, this will raise the price of goods, but it also keeps the government out of my damned healthcare (and also raising the price of goods).

But in any event, I just want the government to stop trying to fix a system that isn't broken. 88% of people are happy with their current healthcare. I'm happy with my healthcare, don't screw with it just because 12% of the population is unhappy with theirs.

 

[Architect]

you know what. At the moment, i am watching Sicko. I will tell you what i think.
The ~50 million uninsured number does not specify Citizens, residents or illegal immigrants. Just Americans. Illegal immigrants do not check themselves in lest they are reported.

Donna and Larry 4:00-5:00. The Health insurance takes into account risk. Was it family insurance or individual insurance? i am assuming the latter, because it is mentioned Larry had three heart attacks. Health insurance (presumably) works like car insurance. Your Premiums go up every time you use it, am i correct?

Crying children at 7:00. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Yes, I appreciate that you don't agree with Moore's work, but do you have any facts, evidence, citeable and reliable links to back up your position? Can you flesh out the fairly clear questions I just put to you regarding the points which you raised?

 

[Delscottio]

That's the collective profit making company deciding what's good for the collective.

Thats the US system....