Peter_Puget Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Thus spake Pelosi after her man was defeated 149-86. Does anyone else see a republican president in 2008? RIP MIlton. Anyone else laugh whenever they hear about Milton Keynes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Does anyone else see a republican president in 2008? A Republican, or another RINO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 No republican. I think Hillary is going to go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 No republican. I think Hillary is going to go for it. Not if she keeps talking about Health Care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 She's not the only one bringing up the suject: "Casesa said health care could be the one area where the auto industry could see some financial relief with the new Congress. The three companies estimate they'll spend more than $12 billion on health care this year for more than 2 million employees, retirees and their family members in the United States." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Somebody should. It's messed up. Even business leaders recognize this. Simply saying 'Nationalized health care isn't the answer' isn't sufficient. At least she's encouraging a dialog about the problem, which is better than ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away or simply saying 'You're all on your own now'. The model we have now simply isn't working and it's clear the pharma/health/insurance industries aren't really interested in changing things. Given the influence of these industries in DC, we obviously don't have a competitive free market in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 we obviously don't have a competitive free market in this area. Exactly. We have the costs of a socialized medicine without the benefits, and the drawbacks of the freemarket without the benefits. The PIA of applying for insurance? Or just calling up your insurer to find out who will provide specific care such as vaccinations? Hell, ever tried to cancel your health insurance policy? Good luck. The freemarketers ideology is abused for the sake of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a study author and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard, noted: "We pay the world's highest health care taxes. But much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks. And HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers' expense. But politicians claim we can't afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don't get it." Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, commented: "Our study shows that universal coverage is affordable - without a big tax increase. Government already spends nearly enough, but its spending it wrong. National health insurance doesn't mean spending more; it means spending wisely. We spend over $309 billion each year on paperwork in insurance companies, hospitals and doctors' office - at least half of which could be saved through national health insurance. We spend $150 billion on medications, at prices 50% higher than Canadians pay for the same drugs. By slashing bureaucracy and drug prices we could save enough to cover all of the uninsured and improve coverage for the rest of us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a study author and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard, noted: "We pay the world's highest health care taxes. But much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks. And HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers' expense. But politicians claim we can't afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don't get it." Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, commented: "Our study shows that universal coverage is affordable - without a big tax increase. Government already spends nearly enough, but its spending it wrong. National health insurance doesn't mean spending more; it means spending wisely. We spend over $309 billion each year on paperwork in insurance companies, hospitals and doctors' office - at least half of which could be saved through national health insurance. We spend $150 billion on medications, at prices 50% higher than Canadians pay for the same drugs. By slashing bureaucracy and drug prices we could save enough to cover all of the uninsured and improve coverage for the rest of us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Go ahead and laugh, you fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Go ahead and laugh, you fool. I wish I could hear him over the Chinese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Go ahead and laugh, you fool. Nationalized health care will be more expensive and lower quality. Only an utter fool would actually believe otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Nationalized health care will be more expensive and lower quality. It is more expensive, but HIGHER quality, than NO health care at all...which is the amount of health care coverage a large number of working people currently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Nationalized health care will be more expensive and lower quality. It is more expensive, but HIGHER quality, than NO health care at all...which is the amount of health care coverage a large number of working people currently have. Keep up the socialist mantra, tovarish. Hillarycare was such a success in 1992; I'm sure it'll be a win this time around too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Actually - Massachussetts passed a law that I think will eventually become something of a national model for healthcare. Everyone in the state has to pay for health insurance, and people below a certain threshold have their premium subsidized in a manner that's proportional to their incomes. Takes care of the free rider problem, the shrinking risk pool, etc while giving people a choice in the level of coverage - comprehensive, catastrophic - and the ability to choose from amongst a number of insurers who are competing for their business. Employers who don't offer coverage have to pay an annual feel that the state uses to help pay for the uninsured. Sort of like the current model for auto insurance with subidies for folks at the bottom of the income scale. Not something that's going to make everyone happy, but a better solution than most that I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 An example of the power of positive, possibility-oriented thinking: Actually - Massachussetts passed a law that I think will eventually become something of a national model for healthcare. Everyone in the state has to pay for health insurance, and people below a certain threshold have their premium subsidized in a manner that's proportional to their incomes. Takes care of the free rider problem, the shrinking risk pool, etc while giving people a choice in the level of coverage - comprehensive, catastrophic - and the ability to choose from amongst a number of insurers who are competing for their business. Employers who don't offer coverage have to pay an annual feel that the state uses to help pay for the uninsured. Sort of like the current model for auto insurance with subidies for folks at the bottom of the income scale. Not something that's going to make everyone happy, but a better solution than most that I've seen. An example of impossibility-oriented thinking: Keep up the socialist mantra, tovarish. Hillarycare was such a success in 1992; I'm sure it'll be a win this time around too. Why is the suggestion of a national health care system for the most prosperous nation on Earth met with such disdain? And why does it work on the assumption that it follows Billary's plan? Nothing is free. Health care shouldn't be either- but is it possible that it can be made affordable to all, regardless of income, and retain quality? If we say that it is, it will be realized. If not, we're all just Marked for Death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Keep up the socialist mantra, tovarish. Hillarycare was such a success in 1992; I'm sure it'll be a win this time around too. A little historical clarification here: the Hillary plan failed more for the way she went about trying to ram it through congress than for its basic principles. Hillary naively thought that the way to break congress's historical inaction on the issue was to create a final proposal without much congressional consultation, and then present it to congress as a final product for passage. Predictably, congress balked. I'd wager that Hillary is a little more savvy these days. This was one of the top issues voters cared most about this past election. I'd expect some movement on it in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Phil Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 So folks want the same government that sent us to Iraq to be responsible for our healthcare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 whatever is opposite of Bush...haven't you been paying attention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If not, we're all just Marked for Death. We *are* all marked for death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 The largest medical government program in the US, Medicare, is also the most effecient provider. Its overhead costs are around 5%, compared to the 25 -30% of the private insurers. Blue Cross of Massachusetts has about the same amount of administrative employees as the entire Canadian Health Care System. Multiply that by the number of other insurers in the state and you can clearly see the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 So folks want the same government that sent us to Iraq to be responsible for our healthcare? As always, go with what you've got. P.S.It's also the same government that won two world wars simultaneously, put men on the moon, and invented the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 So folks want the same government that sent us to Iraq to be responsible for our healthcare? A lot more than I want insurance companies having anything to do with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbconlin Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Nationalized health care will be more expensive and lower quality. It is more expensive, but HIGHER quality, than NO health care at all...which is the amount of health care coverage a large number of working people currently have. Keep up the socialist mantra, tovarish. Hillarycare was such a success in 1992; I'm sure it'll be a win this time around too. So do you have any suggestions for making our healthcare system work, do you foolishly believe that it does currently work, or is it all you can do to spew your blindly anti-progressive BS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think we'll be seeing more high-deductible plans coupled with tax-sheltered, debit-card-accessible HSA's in the future. I think that whole foods already went this route, and I suspect they'll be a major part of the market when the compulsory-insurance deadline rolls around in MA. I'd much rather pay lower premiums, and get the return on the money that doesn't get spent on health care expenses myself, rather than the insurer get all of this benefit. Transfering the tax deductability for premiums to the individual and taking it away from employers would be something I'd like to see. Under this set of circumstances, I'd much rather get all of my compensation in cash and determine what kind of plan I want, instead of having that determined for me and having my pay reduced by $500 a month or more. I'd also much rather contact specialists directly, compare their rates, and pay cash upfront instead of having to dick around with visits to the PCP and get a referral, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.