Universal Health Care

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 8 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]492682[/snapback]</div>

Having read each and every one of your posts on this topic, I do not think that I took it out of context. You let your guard off for a moment and let this tidbit slip by and show everyone your true self and the disdain with which you hold the less fortunate members of society. After all, you have it all, why should they.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 8 2007, 10:08 PM) [snapback]492763[/snapback]</div>

You are an overly-judgmental POS. You know absolutely nothing about me or my lot in life. For you to take something that I said completely out of context and then use it to accuse me of being racist is absolutely unconscionable. I did not let anything slip which is readily apparent if you read the entirety of what I wrote.

Perhaps you are truly the one that is the racist, as you assumed that I was talking about blacks. In fact, "these people" that I was talking about were the unemployed that were receiving public assistance. "These people" included blacks, whites, hispanics, and just about every other racial group.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 8 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]492776[/snapback]</div>

So now you are resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

Where in the world did I mention or refer to anybody by race? Less fortunate members of society, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and the sick, to whom you have in such disdain and contempt, come in all colors of the rainbow.

Thanks for revealing your true bigoted self.

I have had it with you. Time to put you on my "Ignore and do not respond to list."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 8 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]492800[/snapback]</div>

Don't be coy and try to hide your obvious innuendo now. You started all of this by taking two words out of one of my posting totally out of context. Your intentions were obvious and you got called on it.

Bye-bye. You won't be missed.

That's right, off with you. Shoo-shoo. Get along now.

Tuck your tail between your legs and run away because you got called on the carpet over a baseless accusation. How childish can you possibly be?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 8 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]492811[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately, a lot of people of the liberal persuasion often turn to personal attack when they realize the futility of their beliefs. I predict he will be back.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 8 2007, 04:26 PM) [snapback]492596[/snapback]</div>

so you could cut the cost of US health care in half?

and the rankings criteria - very subjective at best. i wonder where the authors of this study would go for their health care if they were truly sick?

Again, back to Wisconsin - their limited govt run health care plan would cost how much?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 8 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]492543[/snapback]</div>

Why dont you care about the cost of a LIMITED govt run health care program? You state you can cut the cost of US health care in half - a pretty outrageous and I believe bogus claim - yet you cant predict the cost of the Wisconsin plan - i read that they estimated the cost at $15 billion dollars - more than they collect in taxes in toto - and for what you call a limited program. Its not even universal care, according to you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 8 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]492568[/snapback]</div>

It would be my belief that our society would want to attract the brightest and best in terms of people wanting to pursue a career in medicine. It would be impossible to do without making a career in medicine financially rewarding - especially given the additional years of study and the time requirements (nights and weekends) it entails.

I have steered my three oldest children away from a career in medicine - there is no need for them to invest the time and heartache for the current set of headaches we have. #2 starts his JD/MBA program in two weeks and in the same time his classmates graduate from medical school and then face another 3 to 9 years of training he will be out earning a very decent living - and not have to worry about socialized medicine, ambulance chasing lawyers, govt interference, re-certification for ever, patients who choose their physician based on insurance plans, etc. It is sad to think he will make more his first summer as an intern than most medical interns make in a year - probably more.

 

When did profit become such a dirty word?

Private competitors innovate or die. Government workers do what they did last year. That's why I want the private sector operating in a free and open market to provide my health care. Pursuit of profit will give us our best medicines and medical devices.

America's medical system has problems, but profit is the least of them. Government mandates, overregulation and a tax code that pushes employer-paid health insurance prevent a truly free market. Six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties. That kills the market. Patients rarely shop around, and doctors rarely compete on price or service.

Do we want the government employees who run the troubled Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be in charge of our entire health care system? After all, they are not motivated by the quest for profits.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with people wanting socialism. My problem is when they want to drag me into it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 08:13 AM) [snapback]492919[/snapback]</div>

You are indeed very wise my Swanny!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2007, 06:30 AM) [snapback]492906[/snapback]</div>

I think it would be quite obvious why I wouldn't care what Wisconsin's State Reinsurance Program costs. That reason would be that I don't live in the State of Wisconsin. Since this is a state issue, it is up the the state government to decide if the cost is worth the benefits. The citizens will then decide if they like it by deciding whether to vote the politicians out of office.

I see you finally decided to do some research and provide some numbers. Yes, the estimated cost is $15.2 billion dollars. This is the be raised by a 10.5% tax on business payroll's and a 4% tax on individuals. It is projected to save $17 billion in insurance premiums. I doubt those saving will materialize but that is the projected savings. I suspect the insurance companies will just convert their savings into increased profits.

Some businesses like the Wal-Marts and McDonalds hate it because now they will have to pay something for health insurance. Businesses that already pay for health insurance like it because now all business have to at least kick in something and they have been promised 30% lower rates and savings of $17 billion.

So how does reinsurance work? As I said before, this is not new, New York has been doing this since 2001. Have your insurance rates dropped by 30%?

 

I am down for standardized health care for all.
Anyone under 50 is to young for cancer so no person under 50 gets treated for cancer.
Anyone over 60 has outlived any usefulness and should not get health care, as it is a waist of money.
Any child with certain problems will be to big a cost down the line so no health care for them.
Certain costly disabilities should not be treated, as the cost of treating certain disabilities with certain treatments is uncertain.
All emergency treatments should be done by appointment only.
All non-emergent treatments should be done by appointment unless it is an emergency.
All documents must be filled out in triplicate with a certified copy signed by the person receiving medical care or no care will be provided.

 

I am all for watching the Wisconsin "fishbowl" while the experiment runs its course. Although, I don't see why anyone would expect any different result in Wisconsin, since similar programs have already been tried in other states. They have all failed, resulting in higher costs and lower quality patient care.

A good example is TennCare, Tennessee's failed attempt at "universal coverage". The Tennessee government initially offered a generous benefits package. Predictably, costs skyrocketed because patients had no incentives to spend prudently.

In response, the government attempted to control costs by slashing payments to doctors and hospitals. Hospitals closed and doctors left the state in droves. Many doctors that remained stopped seeing TennCare patients, since they lost money on each one.

Many people had no alternative to TennCare, because the state regulations had all but destroyed the insurance market. Ironically, TennCare ended up causing the most harm to the very people it was intended to help -- the working poor and rural patients. Nor did TennCare save money. Instead, it nearly bankrupted the Tennessee state budget.

Socialized medicine is not the cure for Wisconsin's health care problems. Forcing everyone into a government-run medical program because some people are uninsured makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to live in a government-run housing project because some people are homeless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]493027[/snapback]</div>

i am so for this. free housing for everyone! Hhhhmmmm what else oh yeah every one is equal and no person shall make more money than any other person. no person shall have status over another person. all things will be shared equally based on the lowest common denominator.

This will so work for everyone in the world.







If anyone cant tell im being stupid and sarcastic and actually the OP makes total sense to me imho.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]493005[/snapback]</div>

if this LIMITED coverage is so expensive, how much will it cost them to provide universal care?

and how much newer taxes will be needed to cover the already existing govt programs?

and what if the new taxes dont cover expenses.

like i said, let wisconsin be the test case if they want to be.

as some wise swanny said - if you want socialism fine by me, just dont take me with you.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]493027[/snapback]</div>

If it is possible, you keep getting smarter and smarter! May I ask what do you do for a living, you seem very knowledgeable in health care matters. And very nice point about TennCare. And your analogy with the homeless is beyond brilliant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]493033[/snapback]</div>

Currently, I'm a financial operations analyst in the banking industry. I have an MBA and an MPA and worked for years in government, so I know what it looks like in the belly of the beat. During my tenure in public service, I worked closely with the Medicare and Medicaid programs, so I have a fairly intimate knowledge of those quasi-socialized health care insurance programs. Based on my education and personal experience, I have a fairly libertarian view on most matters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]493027[/snapback]</div>

It is beyond obvious that you have no knowledge of TennCare. You are speaking to someone that until 2 months ago lived in Tennessee and may know just a little bit more than you about TennCare. TennCare was NOT by any means "Universal Coverage". I was not eligible for TennCare due to the fact that I am not in poverty, though I would loved it if it truly was "universal" because TennCare was better than the insurance offered by my company.

TennCare was an expansion of Medicaid and was only available to the poor. Yes, cost skyrocketed for TennCare just as costs have skyrocketed for all health care over the last decade. TennCare was not government run health care but instead government paid health care. When the cost of healthcare went up, the cost to the state of Tennessee went up as well.

TennCare did not harm the very people it intended to help, it greatly improved the level of care and the poor on TennCare showed improvements in health in many areas. Now that TennCare has been greatly scaled back, the poor in Tennessee are back to relying on the emergency room for their "health care".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]493057[/snapback]</div>

Do you mean to tell me that 25% of the residents of Tennessee are poor, because that is the number that were on TennCare's rolls at one point? (Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stori...ditorial1.html)

You make it sound like only those in poverty were eligible for TennCare, but that was not the case. TennCare expanded the state's Medicaid program to include people earning up to 300% of the federal poverty line (i.e., a middle-class family of four making $55,000 a year). That is 3 times the poverty limit for those of you playing along at home, and squarely into what most would define as middle-class incomes.

In fact, TennCare's enrollment grew so quickly during its first year that it neared the federal cap of 1.5 million people, meaning the federal government would not share in the cost of the number above that. In response to the growth in enrollment, in 1995 the state closed eligibility to adults who were uninsured.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]493033[/snapback]</div>

Like I said before, government run, single-payer universal health care will cost half what the U.S. currently spends on health care. I say that because the countries that provide this type of health care pay half as much per capita on health care to cover a much larger percentage of their population. That said, I doubt we will see this type of health care in the US because the health care and insurance industry are too powerful.

Like I said, Wisconsin is not the test case for this. In the report on the State of Wisconsin's website (I've posted it a couple times here) they point to New York as their example. They claim "Healthy New York" has "reduced the cost of insurance over 50% for individuals and up to 30% for businesses since 2001".

You say you are a doctor working in New York. So again I'll ask, has "Healthy New York" reduced your insurance rates as claimed. I must be nice to be having your insurance rates dropping while the rest of the country has seen ours climb dramatically over the last 6 years.

BTW, since you are a doctor, how do you find time to continually reply to my posts all day? Now, me, I'm unemployed so I have all day, but I would think that you should be busy seeing patients all day. The 3 people that I know that work in hospitals are busy all day and don't have time to sit around arguing with people online. Of course, they don't have access to the internet at work either. Of course maybe you work in private practice. If so, is this what the doctor is doing while I'm waiting in the room? B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]493076[/snapback]</div>

You pull this 50% reduction out of thin air. You are going to compare a country of 300,000,000 people with the diversity we have and the 15,000,000 illegals we have to care for to some small european country and say poof - i can save 50% of all health care costs if we can be like them?? And those countries have a well worn down population that does NOT expect excellent health care and MRI's and organ transplants - are used to the horrors of govt run systems and take them in stride -- that will not work here, not close, not ever. As a new yorker i would love to see the benefits of the study you cite - my costs have done nothing but increase year after year for less and less and more and more mandates - so they might right about them but i have not yet experience them. I have never heard of Healthy New York either - boy must i be in the dark - or perhaps i am being hit by my ever increasing taxes year after year to pay govt expenses - NY is one of the highest taxed states - and this is probably one reason why.

i can reply because i lie so often actually, i find it interesting how all the non-physician types have all the health care answers since they dont even live it. and i am busy seeing patients - trying to keep ny healthy - actually its a nice break from having to think.

and i must add, the swammy sure has you by the short hairs. interesting how the dems want to increase schipp coverage to 400% over the poverty income level - seems like tenncare is coming back or trying too - might as well bankrupt the nation even more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]493067[/snapback]</div>

First your link didn't work for me but even if it did it is an editorial so not really top notch proof.

While you are correct that TennCare was offered to people above the federal poverty line ($15,100 for a family of 4 in 1994 and $20,650 in 2007) you also had to meet other criteria. In 1994 TennCare allowed 3 groups to join. I did not qualify for TennCare when I moved to TN in 2000 so it could not have been universal health care. The original groups were:

* Group 1: Medicaid eligibles
* Group 2: Uninsured people who lacked access to insurance as of a prior date (March 1, 1993) and who continued to lack access
* Group 3: Uninsurable people, meaning people who had been turned down for health insurance because of a health condition

You are correct that as of Dec 31, 1994 TennCare was closed to people in group 2 due to the federal cap. Isn't it sad that at least 29% of Tennessee's 5.2 million people in 1994 fell into those 3 groups?

You also seem to present the picture that TennCare was free. It was not free. TennCare was a State insurance plan that had to be purchased. The premium was set on a sliding scale depending on income. Treatment was not free either, co-pays were required as well.

TennCare was also the least expensive government run program in the country spending $2825 per member and only consumed 17% of the state budget. That is according to a study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid done with 1998 numbers. In 2007 it is budgeted for $7 Billion dollars and 27% of the budget to cover 1.2 million people.

If you or anyone else wants to know how TennCare really worked go to: http://www.state.tn.us/tenncare/news-statistics.html

Specifically look at the Timeline of all the changes to TennCare from 1994 to 2007

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2007, 04:30 AM) [snapback]492906[/snapback]</div>

Berman, you are out of line. You are notorious for ignoring questions that you do not care to answer and twisting the words of other posters.

In the instant case, It was not I who resorted to personal attacks. I simply pointed out where the other PC member exhibited his elitist and prejudiced attitude toward less fortunate members of society. He responded by name calling and personal attacks.

I am not running away from anything. I am simply ignoring him and will not read or acknowledge any of his posts.