Behold: National Health Care

[mattp]

Don't say the "system" doesn't work; because it does for the majority of people invested in it.

 

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes.

 

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world …

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system…..

Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people. Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.

The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The WHO study has been criticized both for its methodology and for a lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings. The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[13] and 45th for highest total life expectancy. A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations. On the other hand, the National Health Interview Survey, released annually by the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reported that approximately 66% of survey respondents said they were in "excellent" or "very good" health in 2006.

 

 

 

My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon.

 

In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital.

 

Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

 

[pink]

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes.

 

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world …

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system…..

Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people. Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.

The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The WHO study has been criticized both for its methodology and for a lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings. The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[13] and 45th for highest total life expectancy. A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations. On the other hand, the National Health Interview Survey, released annually by the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reported that approximately 66% of survey respondents said they were in "excellent" or "very good" health in 2006.

 

 

 

My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon.

 

In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital.

 

Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

[canyondweller]

Don't say the "system" doesn't work; because it does for the majority of people invested in it.

 

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes.

 

No, the government needs to get the hell out of the way and let the oil industry find and refine more oil...see how government roadblocks are a problem here? Of course I hate taxes, mattp. Don't you? Why is my life energy being sent off to Washington to be doled out to people who don't work for themselves? And don't say, "oh, they didn't have the chances and opportunities that you did." We all, I am sure, have family members who lived through the Depression. How did they make it? By working hard anyway they could.

 

Ask yourself why those 47 million do not have health insurance, and I bet you will find that they have CHOSEN not to spend the money; I know people like that. I heard an interesting twist on that infant mortality statistic - it's not that we have more babies dying (we don't, that is absurd), but all these developing countried have LESS babies dying. Why? Oh, because rich, benevolent countries like the US send them vaccines.

 

It is unfortunate about your father-in-law, and your back, but that does not mean a system is broken.

[STP]

 

Of course I hate taxes, mattp. Don't you? Why is my life energy being sent off to Washington to be doled out to people who don't work for themselves? And don't say, "oh, they didn't have the chances and opportunities that you did." We all, I am sure, have family members who lived through the Depression. How did they make it? By working hard anyway they could.

 

Ya mean like the taxpayer funded bailouts of Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, etc.? Why is the fruit of my labor seized and redistributed to folks who make a living by manipulating money? Why is Wall Street bailed out? And give me a fuckin' break my 401k doesn't mean shit, the big players are the ones benefitting. I'm willing to bet that more money goes to the real leaches as opposed to monies being spent on the poor.

 

So, it's ok to deregulate in order to make obscene profits but when the shit hits the fan then it's time for taxpayer funded bailout and time for gov't to resume regulating just to show the public they care enough to do something? Fucking' A-holes

 

 

[mattp]

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely and our government is run by and for oil companies way more than it should be already. And as to opening up domestic drilling, it is obvious that is just another give away to special interests and not the least bit in yours and my interest unless you own oil company stock.

 

I understand you hate taxes and abhor welfare but such rhetoric really doesn't say anything in this discussion. What are you saying about infant mortality? Say what?

 

By any standard we have the most expensive and pound for pound the least beneficial healthcare system in the world, and you don't want to consider improving it because that would be welfare?

 

You insist "Don't say the "system" doesn't work; because it does for the majority of people invested in it" but the truth is it doesn't work for infants, working poor, even middle class folks who are self employed and have significant health problems, older people on a fixed income who do not health insurance subsidized for them because they worked for "evil big government." The system works very well for the people invested in it - especially the insurance companies and others alligned against healthcare reform. Who do you think is donating money to defeate any national dialog on the issue?

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Look at the Walter Reed Army Hospital debacle. That's what government health care would look like nation-wide. Re malpractice: Do you really think the government would hold itself accountable and avil itself to lawsuits? And the flip-side of those expensive tests you complain about are that they wouldn't be ordered under a cost-control environment--and people would die.

 

edit: Medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of gross income are tax deductible. If you paid $8k .p. you must be doing pretty well financially.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Fairweather

[rob]

My problems with any proposed single-payer/government controlled system lie not with any equity issues but, rather, with issues of freedom and control. The old Hillary-Care proposal would have put too much power in the hands of government. Are you really for that?

 

I can respect this argument. I'm not a fan of big-government, really. I'm mostly concerned with the unfortunate, who cannot afford health care, and cannot qualify for medicaid. CanyonDweller's argument of "well, they're just not working hard enough" doesn't work for me.

 

I think we need some kind of system in which basic health insurance is mandatory; if not provided by your employer, then there should be a basic, cheap health insurance available. How to make it cheap? I dunno. Maybe it would be subsidized by tax-payers. I'd be OK with that. But maybe private insurance would work. I think a key provision would be to require health insurance companies to be non-profit or co-op type businesses. This would probbaly help keep the cost down.

 

Maybe there could be another provision where you could opt-out of insurance if you could demonstrate that you had enough assets to afford to private pay.

 

Just throwing out ideas. I'm not a health-care expert. I just know what we have now isn't working for a lot of people.

[mattp]

Fairweather: you sound like KK again. We are not necessarily talking about having the government run all the hospitals and in fact I think few national politicians are considering that at all. In addition, it is anti-tax, anti-big-government and anti-welfare arguments that your favorite politicians use against providing funding for "social services" while proclaiming how patriotic they are in "supporting the troops." Walter Reed would be a better place if it was better funded. Bottom line.

 

And your point about liability? Aren't you one of those who complains about frivolous lawsuits and supports tort reform? The insurance companies who pay the claims want REGULATIONS to protect their bottom line. I can't find the statistic right now, but yesterday I found an alarming number about the actual incidence of malpractice. How should this be addressed -- do you want more government regulation or are you in favor of maintaining personal responsibility through a civil liability system?

 

And "socialized medicine?" Right now we lack a functioning private insurance system and the government ends up picking up much of the tab anyway - and we are not just talking about the uninsured. The indigent rely on Medicaid, the elderly Medicare, and the emergency rooms too are funded with government handouts. And where the government is involved, things mostly go pretty well as far as I can tell. Even though funding is not what it probably should be, the services provided by the Veterans' Administration are in fact pretty good. Walter Reed was a spectacular story because it was, well, spectacular. My older clients who use veterans services are grateful for everything they can get and I never hear them complaining that the quality of treatment is poor. They could use more services, though.

 

In short: the private insurance industry has proven not up to the task of insuring Americans and government involvement in healthlcare has mostly been a big plus.

[glassgowkiss]

 

 

Ask yourself why those 47 million do not have health insurance, and I bet you will find that they have CHOSEN not to spend the money; I know people like that.

 

because they can't afford it or the insurance company dropped them because they developed some form of disease, that costs a lot of money to treat. a middle aged parents of family of 4 would have to pay between 800 -1000 per month for insurance policy. an annual average income in the US for 2006 was $48,201.00. thats roughly 9600- 12000 per year for health insurance. standard deduction on 1040 for married filing jointly is 10700. this is what the deduction is, however nobody will tell me that you can pay rent/ mortgage, gas, car insurance and groceries for 1 year for 4 people and it would cost 10.700 bucs. do the friggin math before you spew a bunch of bullshit. once again your story is a pile of turd.

[TREETOAD]

Public Health care is fucking great!!!! I have NO worries for anyone in my family whether it is my 82 year old mother with MS. My 84 year old father who had a massive stroke at 68, My kids my wife, or for that matter anybody I know or will ever know EVER having to sell the farm because of illness of any kind, NO MATTER WHAT. how can that be bad in ANY way. It is just that easy.

[glassgowkiss]

Look at the Walter Reed Army Hospital debacle. That's what government health care would look like nation-wide. Re malpractice: Do you really think the government would hold itself accountable and avil itself to lawsuits? And the flip-side of those expensive tests you complain about are that they wouldn't be ordered under a cost-control environment--and people would die.

 

edit: Medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of gross income are tax deductible. If you paid $8k .p. you must be doing pretty well financially.

 

fw you are on shrooms. what you just wrote has nothing to do with reality. kk, canyon swiller or pink might have a coherent point now and then. so far you produced a pile of verbal garbage. you really live in a la-la land. does your family know you need a psychiatric care loony?

[mattp]

Heres an editorial from NYT that makes some of the points I've been asserting here: 2007 Editorial

 

Existing government run healthcare is very good and even the President seeks care at military facilities.

 

Republican fearmongering over "socialized medicine" is complete baloney.

 

Too bad so many right-leaning Americans, and it seems some of our astute friends here at cc.com, swallow a bunch of special interest generated sloganeering about socialized medicine without question.

[mattp]

What does canyondweller say about this? Is it really only people who choose to spend their money unwisely or who have chosen not to work who have trouble paying for needed medical care?

 

Half of all Americans who file bankruptcy do so because of medical bills and three-quarters of them had health insurance.

2005 Article

 

[dmuja]

..the government needs to get the hell out of the way and let the oil industry find and refine more oil..

 

Why? Because the desperately rich aren't rich enough? Or is it simply payback for getting the "Oil Man from Texas" elected?. Maybe the government should "get out of the way" of the morgage industry as well...wait a second.. that didn't work so well did it.

 

PS- there is no "oil shortage" at the moment. The reason oil prices have increased is due to oil futures speculation for the most part and due to unrestrained greed. Gee sound rather "Enron-ish" dudn't it. Remember the California "electricity crisis"..the one that suddenly seemed to happen and then suddenly seemed to not?

 

 

 

Why is my life energy being sent off to Washington...?

 

Why should I pay for schools if I don't have kids?

Why should I pay for cops when I don't ever call them?

Why should I pay for roads I never drive on?

Why should I pay for parks I never use?

 

Why shuld I learn to read if I ain never goin ta be a lybarian?

 

Dude, you're outdated, extremest, right wing, libertarian opinions are so cliché and yet still entertaining in a boring sort of way. But sadly, they are all too familiar as well. This kind of non-thinking doesn't bode to well for "m'merica" neither as the rest of the world is poised to leave us behind - eventually even militarily, and so even starting another war for oil will not work.

 

And don't say, "oh, they didn't have the chances and opportunities that you did." We all, I am sure, have family members who lived through the Depression. How did they make it? By working hard anyway they could.

 

 

:lmao:

 

 

 

[TREETOAD]

Well said!!

[STP]

Here's a graph of the 2009 Federal Budget and government spending. Maybe it'll give a perspective on how much is spent on various programs.

 

2009 Federal Discretionary Budget

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

none of you guys climbed this w/e did you?

 

[billcoe]

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely .....

 

I call bullshit.

 

You have statistics and a link? Bring the facts, jack.

[Fairweather]

Dude, I like climbed Mount Pete, like three times. Back-to-back...and unroped. And by three different routes!

Edited August 11, 2008 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely .....

 

I call bullshit.

 

You have statistics and a link? Bring the facts, jack.

 

Liberals consider any type of corporate tax break a "subsidy".

 

 

[mattp]

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely .....

 

I call bullshit.

 

You have statistics and a link? Bring the facts, jack.

 

Bill, subsidies come in many forms. For example, you may not consider it a direct subsidy but it was oil companies and tire companies who wanted the old Interurban that ran from Tacoma to Everett taken out so they could sell more gas and tires. That kind of influence continues, don't you think? Hell, the entire Iraq war was for oil, but even if you don't believe Greenspan on this point we recently won the long term oil contract for US oil companies. just a month ago Do you think taxpayers spend a few pennies working toward securing these contracts?

 

Even lawmakers from both sides of the aisle recognize that we have subsidized oil companies, though I believe the 2007 energy bill eventually passed without that part of the legislation that would have ended certain tax breaks. Republicans fight to maintain subsidies

 

For some more background, consider this:

n 1916 the federal government created the first tax breaks for oil and gas companies. According to the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, "After almost 90 years of taxpayer-funded subsidies, the oil and gas industries are flourishing but taxpayers still continue to contribute billions annually to the energy sector."

 

The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) released a report titled, "Sensible Energy Policies," in March 2001. The report detailed the various types of subsides oil companies receive: gas and oil loan guarantees, overseas refiner credits, enhanced oil recovery credits, intangible drilling costs credits, and depletion allowances. SEC recommended that each type of subsidy by eliminated by Congress.

 

In 1999 the government created guaranteed loans of up to $10 million for eligible oil and gas producers. The loans are financed through private banking and investment institutions, but are guaranteed by federal taxes, "making liable for up to $500 million should the companies default," according to the SEC report, and "that number jumps to $600 million if the administrative costs associated with the program are included.

 

Over $400 million of overseas refinery taxes are subsidized by federal taxes "which increases refinery capacity overseas rather than within our own borders," the SEC report stated.

 

Oil companies may be eligible for a 15 percent tax credit for recovering the costs of recovering domestic oil if they use "enhanced oil recovery" methods. The methods involve injecting gas, fluids and other chemicals into the oil reservoir, or using heat to extract the oil.

 

Tax code provisions allow integrated oil and gas companies to deduct 70 percent of their intangible drilling costs, and deduct the other 30 percent over five years. Intangible drilling costs are "defined as the cost of wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies and site preparations associated with drilling."

 

Certain oil, gas and uranium producers are eligible for a subsidy under the tax code. Oil companies can deduct 15 percent from their drilling costs, but some independent oil companies can deduct 100 percent.

 

source

 

And ask yourself: do you think there is tax money that will be spent on encouraging domestic exploration and development? Of course.

 

---

 

My point was, however, that canyondweller was nutty to suggest that the government should get the hell out of the way of the oil companies so they could bring us cheaper gasoline. Do you disagree? If anything, our government should take a much more active role in regulating them and steering our energy future toward better long-term solutions.

[akhalteke]

Seems that the US ranks below England:

 

The World Health Report – Health systems: Improving performance*.

 

*Copies of the Report can be ordered from bookorders@who.ch.

 

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

 

One of the biggest issues: no one goes without decent care in other countries and no one is going to go bankrupt because of health costs.

 

We could easily cover the US population with the same money we are now spending. The difference? No huge profits and CEO salaries.

 

 

We are also going to reach near 100% overweight status within our lifetimes. Statistics are funny things. When you get lazy and try to take the short-cuts, you draw correlations where there are none.

 

If you knew the amount of money that it costs in health-care services per lb you are overweight, you might understand why these numbers are the way they are. If you want better healthcare, tell your fat-bitch girlfriend to lay-off the cheetos.

[mattp]

Liberals consider any type of corporate tax break a "subsidy".

 

And you argued that if I get a tax deduction for spending money on healtcare I didn't really spend the money. Now how about you explain why you thought rats at Walter Reed was an example of what would happen if we had universal healthcare. It looks to me as if you may be gobbling up special interest scare tactics, thrown out as bait to get folks such as yourself to vote against their interest. With any proposed move toward universal healthcare you could probably keep your present insurance and I bet it would cost you no more.

 

Here's a book for you:

what's the matter with Kansas?

Edited August 11, 2008 by mattp

[Fairweather]

Liberals consider any type of corporate tax break a "subsidy".

 

 

 

Here's a book for you:

what's the matter with Kansas?

 

Uh, yea, Matt, I heard the author of this book giving an interview on The Dave Ross Show on AM 710KIRO just this morning too. Aren't you the one always bashing "talk radio" ditto heads? --yet here you are, implying you've read a book that you clearly have not, and passing on KoolAid that you clearly like the taste of. You're a spoon fed Seattlite, for sure.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Hey Fairweather:

I in no way suggested I had read the book and I didn't listen to the Dave Ross show this morning. Also, that book is three years old. Now: rather than continue with the caustic retorts and speculation about my personal listening habits or income, can you address the substance of this discussion?

 

Unlike you, I've posted a great deal of substance here. I'm sure there is something there you could comment on and, if you put your mind to it, I bet you could even find something wrong with one of my sources or arguments.