I don't get why Obama doesn't Just Say it.

[Lurker]

Fine - how?

McHrozni

I don't claim to have the answers. I just note that other countries pay far less than we do so in depth studies of how they do it would be where I start. We posted some information earlier in this thread that started that process (Admin, outpatient care) but someone would need to dive into the details.

 

[Lurker]

The socialist Utopian concept here is that by putting the insurance companies out of business, the average person would benefit since the insurance companies were scarfing up bunches of profits. (Reality is it was only 2-4%).

Actually, it's like saying the US Post office can/should/would do better than Federal Express or UPS.

Well, actually the USPS does do far better than FedEx or UPS when it comes to delivering my letters and postcards. I get cheap fast service. They could probably triple the cost to send letters (help make up for their deficit) and still be well below what FedEx and UPS would charge.

Further, those believing this typically are not aware of the negatives, such as the effect of putting the 2M people in the insurance industry out of work (and in the middle of a depression to boot). Which is a totally Anti Keynesian approach to solving a depression, or to be blunt, is directly a way to make it worse.

So that'd move the 10.2% unemployment to 12.5%. Wow, that'd be brilliant Socialism! Wow!!!

You think 2M people would lose their jobs? Why would you think that? Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic here? Someone still has to process claims, accounting, etc...

 

[McHrozni]

I don't claim to have the answers. I just note that other countries pay far less than we do so in depth studies of how they do it would be where I start. We posted some information earlier in this thread that started that process (Admin, outpatient care) but someone would need to dive into the details.

Correlation vs. causation might have gotten into you. Yes, countries with predominant single payer systems do pay less, but I strongly suspect there are other, much more important causes. Fewer doctors seems to be a fairly important one, imho. I red an article in a local free newspaper that had an intervew with a doctor working in the USA, and he described how much he worked and how much he was paid, etc.
It seems to me he would be happy enough with 1/4 of the current pay and another 2 doctors to be hired to do part of his work, cutting the costs by about 25-35% (he's a senior surgeon), and cutting his workload tremendusly. He'd still be better paid than his European counterparts, earning over 100k$/year.

This may not be an entirely representative example, but the core of the matter is accurate. US doctors are overworked and need to be paid very well to do so. If you want to cut their pays, you'll have to increase their numbers. It would be beneficial for all involved in the long term.

Other than that, all we have is an appeal to your authority that a single payer system would reduce the costs. Thanks, but I won't believe it as such.

McHrozni

 

[mhaze]

Well, actually the USPS does do far better than FedEx or UPS when it comes to delivering my letters and postcards. I get cheap fast service. They could probably triple the cost to send letters (help make up for their deficit) and still be well below what FedEx and UPS would charge.



You think 2M people would lose their jobs? Why would you think that? Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic here? Someone still has to process claims, accounting, etc...

Given that (single payer) HR 576 provided for a fund to retrain the estimated 2M displaced insurance workers, no, I don't see any reason to discount their estimates. That's from your single payer advocates.

It's true that someone would have to do work, but likely as not, in different geographical areas. Just pointing out that it seems to be okay to force 2M insurance workers out of a job and destroy an entire industry in the midst of a depression. Moreover, do you seriously think that 2M private sector workers are just going to suck it up and go work for the US Government, who destroyed their companies and their jobs?

You are kidding, right?

There's a serious disconnect here, where honest advocates of (what they think is great) Utopian single payer schemes aren't/weren't told about the negative real world consequences of their scheme.

 

[Lurker]

Other than that, all we have is an appeal to your authority that a single payer system would reduce the costs. Thanks, but I won't believe it as such.

I don't think that phrase "appeal to authority" means what you think it means. I made no appeal to authority. I cited data about what each country spends. Correlation/causation is applicable as a criticism. I am open to other factors.

 

[Lurker]

Given that (single payer) HR 576 provided for a fund to retrain the estimated 2M displaced insurance workers, no, I don't see any reason to discount their estimates. That's from your single payer advocates.

It's true that someone would have to do work, but likely as not, in different geographical areas. Just pointing out that it seems to be okay to force 2M insurance workers out of a job and destroy an entire industry in the midst of a depression. Moreover, do you seriously think that 2M private sector workers are just going to suck it up and go work for the US Government, who destroyed their companies and their jobs?

Are you of a mind that single payer would be instituted immediately, even if enacted? By the time it could be enacted, the current fiscal climate will be quite different.

 

[WildCat]

Well, actually the USPS does do far better than FedEx or UPS when it comes to delivering my letters and postcards. I get cheap fast service. They could probably triple the cost to send letters (help make up for their deficit) and still be well below what FedEx and UPS would charge.

Of course they would, because the law states that FedEx and UPS (and any other private carrier) must charge at least 3 times the USPS rate.

I wonder why the USPS needs such a law?

 

[mhaze]

Are you of a mind that single payer would be instituted immediately, even if enacted? By the time it could be enacted, the current fiscal climate will be quite different.

I'm just citing the provision in the bill to "retrain 2M displaced workers".

Translated: 2M workers fired when the industry was demolished by a wacko in the White House with a socialist agenda.

You are exhibiting wishful thinking for the best outcome here. I don't disagree that many outcomes are possible, but consider:

Single payer represents the destruction of a segment of the US economy in exchange for some alleged "good things". Now in response to my pointing out the fact of the economic times being the absolute worse time to do little amateurish socialism experiments, you respond

"but we might get lucky and the fiscal climate could be different".

1) Why would it be different, if you just purposefully destroyed part of the economy? (Hint: That makes it worse).

2) Are you seriously asking people to believe in Socialist Experiment XYZ because maybe by chance the economy would be better when it was cram downed?

3) Do you expect other people to join you in LA LA Land?

4) Is anyone who has bought into the Grand Uptopian Experiment going to admit...

"Well, geez, yah, 2M people out of work, that's bad."

Just wondering.

 

[eeyore1954]

That was my understanding, perhaps eeyore1954 has some information to the contrary on how these people receive treatment.

First there is medicare and then most states have programs for people with low income , then there are local plans and many cancer centers have plans for people with low income and so do the drug companies.

Don't misunderstand me I know a middle income person with some assets could easily lose most if not all of their net worth if faced with a catastrophic illness but I believe someone with no resources or exhausted resources will be able to get care. I have a few times help arrange for people to get medical treatment for other illnesses when they did not have the money.
I am not in favor of the current plan but I am in favor of some sort of catastrophic insurance being available to all based upon ability to pay. I know what it is to not be employed and have to pay for health insurance and I know what it is like to get a 5,000 hospital bill for 1 evening in the ER for a family member when I didn't have health insurance. The hospital was very willing to work out arrangements with me. But being the fool I am I paid in full.

 

[eeyore1954]

Are there really 2,000,000 workers in the health insurance industry. I find that estimate high. But if it takes 2,000,000 in private industry to run the health insurance industry imagine how many new jobs would be created when the government took over.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Are there really 2,000,000 workers in the health insurance industry. I find that estimate high. But if it takes 2,000,000 in private industry to run the health insurance industry imagine how many new jobs would be created when the government took over.

Why would they need more jobs?

 

[kallsop]

Executive summary - throw 47 million new patients into the system, many of them legal residents!, costs go down (after huge medicare cuts), quality stays the same, one new insurance provider (government) in addition to the other 1300, no tort reform, no rationing of care, happy ending. Why could anyone doubt that outcome?

 

[mhaze]

executive summary - throw 47 million new patients into the system, many of them legal residents!, costs go down (after huge medicare cuts), quality stays the same, one new insurance provider (government) in addition to the other 1300, no tort reform, no rationing of care, happy ending. Why could anyone doubt that outcome?

load!

Fire!

Aim!

 

[JJM 777]

He is precisely the one man who is supposed to be open and represent the people in general and tell them the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

Why doesn't he do it, I don't undestand.

Why is the President of USA "supposed" to be open and represent the people in general and tell them the truth?

Because all previous US presidents have done so? Or despite them not having done so?

Because the US political system is designed to function in such way? Or despite it not being designed to function in such way?

 

[JJM 777]

--

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have not read this whole thread, but what is the consensus regarding Obama's recently passed Healthcare plan?

Well the broad consensus is that no such plan has passed yet.

I find myself posting this video often lately:

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re: single payer system:

I'm just citing the provision in the bill to "retrain 2M displaced workers".

Translated: 2M workers fired when the industry was demolished by a wacko in the White House with a socialist agenda.

First, what bill are you talking about? (I don't think there is currently any single payer bill introduced in Congress.) The bill that this thread is about would actually mandate everyone to have insurance and probably increase the number of insurance jobs. (Even the reforms aimed at increasing competition would probably result in even more insurance advertising and more business for insurance brokers.)

Second, Obama doesn't endorse a single payer system. I can't believe anyone can still claim Obama has a "socialist agenda" and keep a straight face.

But to your point: how do they ever get by without having so many insurance salesmen in Canada?

Frankly, if we displaced 2 million insurance industry workers (none of whom provide healthcare services at all), I would be in favor of redirecting the remaining billions of unspent stimulus money to public works projects that would put a shovel in the hands of every out-of-work insurance salesman.

But back in the real world, where a single payer system becomes less and less likely ever to happen, I don't think their jobs are in jeopardy at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Executive summary - throw 47 million new patients into the system, many of them legal residents!, costs go down (after huge medicare cuts), quality stays the same, one new insurance provider (government) in addition to the other 1300, no tort reform, no rationing of care, happy ending. Why could anyone doubt that outcome?

Yep, it sounds silly when you oversimplify something to the point of mischaracterizing it.

So are you saying that insurance companies stand to lose money by having more customers?

The CBO assessment is that over 10 years the House plan would at least be deficit neutral (and probably reduce it) while expanding access to healthcare substantially.

 

[mhaze]

Re: single payer system:
First, what bill are you talking about? (I don't think there is currently any single payer bill introduced in Congress.).....

Second, Obama doesn't endorse a single payer system. I can't believe anyone can still claim Obama has a "socialist agenda" and keep a straight face...

First, the bill that I referenced was HR 676, not 576 as I mistyped earlier.

Second, the socialist whom you refer to whom has at numerous times in the past said he wanted a single payer system? That socialist? The one named Obama? Here Google is your friend again.

Third, I referenced the bill and the issue of the fired 2M workers as a commentary on a different socialist's crass and ignorant opinions as to the relation between the good and bad effects of his utopian agenda. That individual was not the socialist Barack Hussain Obama, but the socialist JoetheJuggler.

....Frankly, if we displaced 2 million insurance industry workers (none of whom provide healthcare services at all), I would be in favor of redirecting the remaining billions of unspent stimulus money to public works projects that would put a shovel in the hands of every out-of-work insurance salesman.

But back in the real world, where a single payer system becomes less and less likely ever to happen, I don't think their jobs are in jeopardy at all.

Right, I agree. And that relates to my earlier comment, that even the Democratic congress who bullied this socialist bill through has more sense regarding the single payer issue than you.

As for your snide comment about insurance salesmen, go for it. We're talking about an entire industry here, and you are displaying enormous ignorance as to the group of job definitions within it.

My point was simply that advocates of the single payer idiocy thought nothing of putting millions out of work, in the middle of a depression. But not if they were Union employees for GM, etc.

....The CBO assessment is that over 10 years the House plan would at least be deficit neutral (and probably reduce it) while expanding access to healthcare substantially.

You mean the scheme that would require people to pay into for 10 years to get benefits for 6 in order to be deficit neutral?

I wonder when the jail time rules kick in if you don't pay your part, is it year 1 or year 4? Probably year 4. They wouldn't want to jail you for not paying the fine for not having bought their mandated scheme if you got no benefits for four years into the future. Would they?

Would they?

 

[murphymcmurph]

everyone has the rite to medical care... let the insurance companies pretend they're not sentencing people to die over profit and let the medical companies the same but if you ask me to choose my pocket over someones life, i choose life. we cannot afford to be ignorant.

i'm a big fan of obama, he's uncorrupted unlike the last president. you can't buy that. appreciate what you have.