Why does everyone hate "socialist" healthcare here?

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG Incorrect analysis, perfectly serving 85% is better than imperfectly serving 100% while perfectly enslaving 48% How do you define perfect? Or are you merely being hyperbolic again? If it serves 85% of the population "perfectly," then why do 65% of Americans favor a public option? http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...25pollgrx.html BTW, the same poll reflects 76% of the respondents' opinions that the Republicans have not clearly explained their plans for changing the health care system. The public is clearly seeing that the GOP has evolved into the party of "no" and isn't terribly interested in bringing viable solutions to the table. Although I wouldn't agree with the use of the term "enslaving," I think the point you're trying to make is that you don't want your taxes going to subsidize others' coverage. But you're already doing it, by way of inflated premiums charged to offset the cost of un- and under-insured ER visits, unreimbursed care, etc. Originally Posted by MG I once blew up a lit professor's 16 year old analysis of "The Heart of Darkness" based entirely on her misunderstanding of what a 6 inch gun is. Black and white, its important. You've made my point, thank you. Originally Posted by MG When the government overreaches, a halt is the best possible result A valid position to take. 65% of the country disagrees, though. Originally Posted by MG you assume that the 46 million uninsured are chronically uninsured. If you took a picture of a waterfall you could assume that all those water droplets are perennially suspended midair. You would be wrong in both instances. 3/10 of a % of this country are defined as chronically uninsured. Can you provide a link to support your figure of 3/10% as chronincally uninsured? That's about 900,000 people. Even the right-wing American Spectator estimates the number at 8.2 million. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...elusions-about Originally Posted by MG No, it puts me in the realist crowd. The lessons espoused by the founders of this country are as relevant now as at any time previously. But as a point of clarification, refer to previous posts where I termed "lethal" as Militaristic as well as market regulation. The feds should have "one bullet" in their market regulation gun, the one they used against Standard and ATT. nothing else. I wouldn't call someone a "realist" who ardently believes that the ONLY federal government's only role in regulating markets is as a monopoly-buster. Do you want to keep the SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, ATF, FCC, FAA, FDA, etc.? Or perhaps you favor pushing these functions down the the states -- 50 different sets of regs will really help market efficiency, don't you think?

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

How do you define likely? In Canada, the death rate for organ transplant waiting lists was 4.91% in 2008. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/dow...ables_2008.pdf

In the U.S., the death rate was 5.21%. http://www.ustransplant.org/annual_r...ent/106_dh.htm

So, you can take the commentary of some guy renting your parents' house, or you can use real statistics to determine which healthcare system is more likely to kill you if you need an organ transplant. Of course, the survival rate has less to do with the healthcare system, and more to do with the actual availability of matching organs. But feel free to take the word of a single vacationing Canuck.



How was CFC messed up? Were the car buyers unhappy with the rebate? The dealerships sold too many cars and got their inventory levels down too low? Or are you focusing on the simple fact that the program was wildly popular but had limited taxpayer resources behind it, and was therefore on a first-come, first-served basis?

Having a father in law who recently passed away despite receiving a lung transplant his level of care was unquestionable. After prepping for a year, he received a lung in 1 week after being placed on a list despite his age. His death had little to do with the lung in any case but other factors. But there was no question he got one much faster than a Canadian would. Statistics can be inaccurate, up or down base don so many factors, experiences can't.

As for the cash for clunkers you must be joking if you think it was a success. Aside from the crappy administration which almost drove dealers into bankruptcy, it spiked auto sales within the month and crashed completely afterwards. It attracted buyers who were Already in the market mainly and worked just like ANY retail Instant Rebate program does - spikes your sales to move inventory quickly (at a loss generally) then your sales crash because the average consumer expects that as the normal price. As "rebates" offered by every auto manufacturer have proven, once a price is down, consumers expect it to stay down, if it goes back up say hellp to heavy inventory.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

How do you define perfect? Or are you merely being hyperbolic again?

If it serves 85% of the population "perfectly," then why do 65% of Americans favor a public option? http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...25pollgrx.html

BTW, the same poll reflects 76% of the respondents' opinions that the Republicans have not clearly explained their plans for changing the health care system. The public is clearly seeing that the GOP has evolved into the party of "no" and isn't terribly interested in bringing viable solutions to the table.

Isn't the Times one of those pollers who load up 60-70% of the respondents with Democrats? As for the GOP, they have offered alternatives, however, no media outlet, with the exception of Fox paid any attention to them. Its not surprising that no one knows about them.

Although I wouldn't agree with the use of the term "enslaving," I think the point you're trying to make is that you don't want your taxes going to subsidize others' coverage. But you're already doing it, by way of inflated premiums charged to offset the cost of un- and under-insured ER visits, unreimbursed care, etc.

Enslaving means binding a person to involuntary servitude. Currently, if I want to drop my medical insurance I can. I don't, and I ***** about the abusers of the system, but ultimately it is my choice to be enrolled in an insurance program. The Democrats would change that. Democrats, the new (and curiously old) party of slavery.

You've made my point, thank you.

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about and have no point.

A valid position to take. 65% of the country disagrees, though.

See above reference to polls.

Can you provide a link to support your figure of 3/10% as chronincally uninsured? That's about 900,000 people. Even the right-wing American Spectator estimates the number at 8.2 million. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...elusions-about

Already have. Currently 86% of the country has Heatlh Insurance. 100% of the country has "health care". Of the 14% of the people without health insurance 98% are uninsured less than 6 months OR are uninsured voluntarily and have access to insurance when they deem it necessary.

that leaves .28% (less than one third of one percent for the math impared) of the country's population, or 840,000 people chronically uninsured because they do not qualify for either medicaid or medicare but work jobs that do not offer insurance.

They typically are serviced by cash clinics or "doc in a box" type places that are low cost and do not require insurance.

I wouldn't call someone a "realist" who ardently believes that the ONLY federal government's only role in regulating markets is as a monopoly-buster. Do you want to keep the SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, ATF, FCC, FAA, FDA, etc.? Or perhaps you favor pushing these functions down the the states -- 50 different sets of regs will really help market efficiency, don't you think?

There is nothing in any of my posts that would prevent the federal government from making rules, but if you want to get into that we can. My post clearly referenced the enforcement options.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

How do you define perfect? Or are you merely being hyperbolic again?

If it serves 85% of the population "perfectly," then why do 65% of Americans favor a public option? http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...25pollgrx.html

Polls are often a very fun game. I hire companies to poll for my line of work and the response you get varies with the question you ask and the variables involved.

For example. Back when it was a daily issue because Bush was in office, the media often quoted polls that "showed" that 90% of Americans were against the "war". Studies found that the questions asked varied on who took the pool. Some asked "Are you for or against war" which, most human beings, regardless of what they felt about a particular conflict would say no.

In the case of health care, the "unwashed masses" when offered the option of getting "free" or "discounted" anything, let alone insurance say......? guess

Never mind that they don't understand the ramifications. Now were the poll to ask "Do you favor a government option for which your taxes would increase up to 15%?" what do you think the answer would be? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Polls are meaningless unless taken from a pool of people educated/briefed fully on the given subject - they are merely tools used by political parties to "strengthen" their case.

I'd be interested to see what the answer would be if asked like this "If it meant losing your current insurance plan, and raising your taxes, do you favor a government option"

Originally Posted by SteveHI

BTW, the same poll reflects 76% of the respondents' opinions that the Republicans have not clearly explained their plans for changing the health care system. The public is clearly seeing that the GOP has evolved into the party of "no" and isn't terribly interested in bringing viable solutions to the table.

Funny how when Republicans ask to slow down, make the bill public, agree that we need reform but not about a public option, they are the party of "no" in the media. When Harry Reid surrenders on the steps of capitol hill, when Nancy Pelosi does everything in her power to leave our troops with no funding in a time of war and when Code Pink protesters block the entrance to recruiting stations and harass people, that's "Free speech", yet if you question a hairbrained policy or don't jump on the bandwagon you are a "party of no". I just read an editorial in Newsweek by a raging liberal saying the same thing - so you don't think that would impact polls?

If the media reported nightly that Nancy Pelosi was a lesbian, I'd bet you $1000 in two weeks if we took a poll, 79% would say Nancy Pelosi was a lesbian.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Although I wouldn't agree with the use of the term "enslaving," I think the point you're trying to make is that you don't want your taxes going to subsidize others' coverage. But you're already doing it, by way of inflated premiums charged to offset the cost of un- and under-insured ER visits, unreimbursed care, etc.

Not really. I don't know about you or MG but I pay $100 a month for my family's coverage , for 100% coverage. That's a bargain. If we go with the government option, we'll lose that, we'll still pay for illegals in ER rooms and on top of that we'll end up paying for the difference between what the government tells the provider to accept and what they really charge.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

A valid position to take. 65% of the country disagrees, though.

See above

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

How do you define perfect? Or are you merely being hyperbolic again?

If it serves 85% of the population "perfectly," then why do 65% of Americans favor a public option? http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...25pollgrx.html

BTW, the same poll reflects 76% of the respondents' opinions that the Republicans have not clearly explained their plans for changing the health care system. The public is clearly seeing that the GOP has evolved into the party of "no" and isn't terribly interested in bringing viable solutions to the table.

Although I wouldn't agree with the use of the term "enslaving," I think the point you're trying to make is that you don't want your taxes going to subsidize others' coverage. But you're already doing it, by way of inflated premiums charged to offset the cost of un- and under-insured ER visits, unreimbursed care, etc.



You've made my point, thank you.


A valid position to take. 65% of the country disagrees, though.


Can you provide a link to support your figure of 3/10% as chronincally uninsured? That's about 900,000 people. Even the right-wing American Spectator estimates the number at 8.2 million. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...elusions-about


I wouldn't call someone a "realist" who ardently believes that the ONLY federal government's only role in regulating markets is as a monopoly-buster. Do you want to keep the SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, ATF, FCC, FAA, FDA, etc.? Or perhaps you favor pushing these functions down the the states -- 50 different sets of regs will really help market efficiency, don't you think?

Steve, I'd rather not get into this argument, but I'd like to comment on the 65% thing. Of those polled, how many believe a "public option" will be free, or at least cheaper than what they currently pay? I'd wager a good many do. I think I pay about $250 per month for my family insurance, with the bulk picked up by my employer. If someone called me up and said "Sir, we're taking a poll today. If you could choose public insurance for $50 per month, would you be interested?"
Well 'eff yeah!

A pollster isn't going to qualify the other factors that come into play. Little things, like 'x' million more people in the plan, while 45% of practitioners are seriously thinking of closing shop.


Edit: LRM is faster on the keyboard.

[benz rider]

YES WE CAN'T!!

[Fatalfury]

Originally Posted by benz rider

YES WE CAN'T!!

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Steve, I'd rather not get into this argument, but I'd like to comment on the 65% thing. Of those polled, how many believe a "public option" will be free, or at least cheaper than what they currently pay? I'd wager a good many do. I think I pay about $250 per month for my family insurance, with the bulk picked up by my employer. If someone called me up and said "Sir, we're taking a poll today. If you could choose public insurance for $50 per month, would you be interested?"
Well 'eff yeah!

A pollster isn't going to qualify the other factors that come into play. Little things, like 'x' million more people in the plan, while 45% of practitioners are seriously thinking of closing shop.

Based on your comments, it looks like you, LRM1, and MG question the validity of the NYT/CBS poll results. But I'm not sure how you infer that the poll question was misleading, or that those administering the poll were injecting their own personal political beliefs into the process. The poll question was, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?" It didn't say it would be free, cheaper, more expensive, etc. - that's not the pollsters' role. The question is straightforward, but I think you guys try to argue that it's not because you don't like the results.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Based on your comments, it looks like you, LRM1, and MG question the validity of the NYT/CBS poll results. But I'm not sure how you infer that the poll question was misleading, or that those administering the poll were injecting their own personal political beliefs into the process. The poll question was, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?" It didn't say it would be free, cheaper, more expensive, etc. - that's not the pollsters' role. The question is straightforward, but I think you guys try to argue that it's not because you don't like the results.

A.)How much does Medicare cost the average person on it?

B.)The underlined passage clearly implies that it IS cheaper than what they have now.

C.) I write polls. I assure you, I can get it to say what I want, whether purposely, or subconsciously.

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Based on your comments, it looks like you, LRM1, and MG question the validity of the NYT/CBS poll results. But I'm not sure how you infer that the poll question was misleading, or that those administering the poll were injecting their own personal political beliefs into the process. The poll question was, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?" It didn't say it would be free, cheaper, more expensive, etc. - that's not the pollsters' role. The question is straightforward, but I think you guys try to argue that it's not because you don't like the results.

I didn't know the exact wording until you posted it, so thanks. It's not that I don't like the results, it's just that I don't believe the motivations are true. People are too easy to say yes to a new program because they assume it will be subsidized by someone else, thus cheaper for them.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by LRM1

Having a father in law who recently passed away despite receiving a lung transplant his level of care was unquestionable. After prepping for a year, he received a lung in 1 week after being placed on a list despite his age. His death had little to do with the lung in any case but other factors. But there was no question he got one much faster than a Canadian would. Statistics can be inaccurate, up or down base don so many factors, experiences can't.

I'm sorry you F-I-L passed away. But many on this board have been extremely critical of using individual cases and isolated incidents to contradict hard statistics. To prove the point that Canadians wait longer for organ transplants, you need something to compare your F-I-L's experience against. Actually, you need many samples to have statistical relevance. And that's what I posted. If you guys find something that's relevant and contradictory to what I've shown, I'm open to it.

Originally Posted by LRM1

As for the cash for clunkers you must be joking if you think it was a success. Aside from the crappy administration which almost drove dealers into bankruptcy, it spiked auto sales within the month and crashed completely afterwards. It attracted buyers who were Already in the market mainly and worked just like ANY retail Instant Rebate program does - spikes your sales to move inventory quickly (at a loss generally) then your sales crash because the average consumer expects that as the normal price. As "rebates" offered by every auto manufacturer have proven, once a price is down, consumers expect it to stay down, if it goes back up say hellp to heavy inventory.

CFC accomplished what it set out to do, which was to temporarily stimulate new car sales and get more fuel-efficient cars on the road. Whether the gov't should be selecting a single industry to subsidize, that to me is the critical argument. The dealers/distributors that I encounter in my work have all been complimentary of the program, with the exception of the uncertainty about how long the CFC A/R would take to collect (it turns out, not that long). The dealers weren't sure how many sales CFC pulled forward into July, but there was anecdotal data that suggests that a significant percentage were new buyers who weren't really in the market. In any case, the timing was good as they were able to get their inventory levels down from 3-6 mos down to 1-2 mos, without having to steeply discount at the model year-end.

My point is that C280 Sport's comment that the feds couldn't run CFC (and thus can't run healthcare) is misplaced. The program was short-lived, but it worked.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by LRM1

A.)How much does Medicare cost the average person on it?

Very little, if anything, on a go-forward basis. The amount contributed over their life varies dramatically, though, as FICA rates and incomes have gone up over time. In 2008 we all paid 2.9% (incl. employers' share, up to $100k or so in wages) into Medicare, with the caveat that we may never get to use the coverage if we meet our demise before reaching the qualifying age.

Honestly, I don't know how much voters know or assume about a public option. They should understand the concept that their private insurance premiums would be replaced in some way by a new tax (or government insurance premiums). And that it should probably be cheaper and more accessible - otherwise, what's the point?

Originally Posted by LRM1

B.)The underlined passage clearly implies that it IS cheaper than what they have now.

Well, it should be, as that's the intent of the public option. But the poll question used the words "like Medicare" which IMO is reasonable, as opposed to "costs no more than Medicare" or "dramatically reduces your out-of-pocket costs." These would be misleading.

Do you think a public option would be a cheaper, viable option for people? On the one hand, I've heard the feds can't be trusted to do anything right, they're sure to screw it up. On the other hand, I've heard that the gov't will have an unfair advantage over the poor insurance companies, driving out the competition. Which is it?

Oh, and it appears that doctors favor a public option, too, in a percentage that's similar to the NYT/CBS poll.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...-doctors.aspx#

Originally Posted by LRM1

C.) I write polls. I assure you, I can get it to say what I want, whether purposely, or subconsciously.

Undoubtedly, the wording of a poll question has lots to do with the results. Here's a recent, relevant example that dramatically affected the NBC/WSJ polls:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_263057.html

[MRAMG1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Based on your comments, it looks like you, LRM1, and MG question the validity of the NYT/CBS poll results. But I'm not sure how you infer that the poll question was misleading, or that those administering the poll were injecting their own personal political beliefs into the process. The poll question was, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?" It didn't say it would be free, cheaper, more expensive, etc. - that's not the pollsters' role. The question is straightforward, but I think you guys try to argue that it's not because you don't like the results.

Sign me up to Einstien

Most polls are started/estasblished to show what they are intended to do, aka bias. I work for a LARGE union comapny, and NOT A SINGLE EMPLOYEE would like to see this health care issue pass

If you are un-employeed, on wealfare, etc, etc, then why would you NOT want to have free health care

The real world that has it, aka Canada, Japan, UK, knows it does not work. Even MOST democrats are voting against their masia

Oh well, I know I pray that this BS does not pass, along with EVERYONE I work with

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I'm sorry you F-I-L passed away. But many on this board have been extremely critical of using individual cases and isolated incidents to contradict hard statistics. To prove the point that Canadians wait longer for organ transplants, you need something to compare your F-I-L's experience against. Actually, you need many samples to have statistical relevance. And that's what I posted. If you guys find something that's relevant and contradictory to what I've shown, I'm open to it.

I am not suggesting that my experience is the end all be all and that it necessarily makes it statistically everyone elses. What I am saying is that people see things through their experiences. If 85% of people are happy with their insurance, then they don't see what the problem is and to push a social program through Congress (actually blind rush it through Congress) merely because you think you have enough votes to do it now, is irresponsible. Considering the $1.2 Trillion dollar deficit, unemployment about to hit 10% (the highest in 26 years) and the state of the dollar, spending $829B on a program that benefits 15% of the population is just plain stupid.

Statistics/polls are a reference point, but unless you know every factor in how they were derived, they aren't THE answer to everything. I remember (being an AV junkie) when Blu Ray and HD DVD were fighting eachother back in 2006 in a format war. I think the AVS forum showed the results of a statistical poll where literally 80% of consumers said they had a "High Definition DVD Player". That was impossible in 2006 since there only something like 2,000 sold to that point and there was no way 80+ million households could have had one - but that was the statistic. And it was a poll - I use this to illustrate that people who answer these things don't necessarily know what they are being asked.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

CFC accomplished what it set out to do, which was to temporarily stimulate new car sales and get more fuel-efficient cars on the road.

Actually no, it was to stimulate sales overall in addition to reducing inventory, and "more fuel efficient" cars meant more than 1-2MPG savings. The final program was so watered down even the environmentalists hated it. It was also meant to drive sales to ailingAmerican companies. Most of them went to Toyota and Honda, something like 41% foreign to 39% domestic (not too bad, but not the goal).

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Whether the gov't should be selecting a single industry to subsidize, that to me is the critical argument. The dealers/distributors that I encounter in my work have all been complimentary of the program, with the exception of the uncertainty about how long the CFC A/R would take to collect (it turns out, not that long). The dealers weren't sure how many sales CFC pulled forward into July, but there was anecdotal data that suggests that a significant percentage were new buyers who weren't really in the market. In any case, the timing was good as they were able to get their inventory levels down from 3-6 mos down to 1-2 mos, without having to steeply discount at the model year-end.

Wait, you just said that your experience can't be used as a basis of establishing fact. In any case, in July and August dealers I know also said it was spectacular and they "couldn't keep up" since then, they've laid off half their staff - probably wouldn't have been as drastic if there wasn't such a spike and crash but I'm speculating.

What do you mean they wouldn't have to "deeply discount" ? Huh? There were dealerships showing $8-$10,000 in discounts including the CFC $4500 rebate. If knocking $4,000-$5,000 of the price of a $20-$30,000 car isn't "deeply discounting" I don't know what is.

Autoweek Analysis, Sept 24th;

1) The cash for clunkers program was instrumental in driving up motor vehicle sales, but has now ended. For the first six months of the year auto sales averaged 9.5 million units a month annualized, and soared to 11.2 million in July and 14.0 million in August as a result of the rebates. The program was so successful that it ended early, and, and according to Edmunds, September sales may abruptly drop back to about 9.3 million. Although the depletion of vehicle inventories will probably lead to increased production for a short time, there'll be no lasting effect on the economy. If anything, sales have been brought forward from coming periods.


Edmunds Analysis
In the U.S., the “Cash For Clunkers” program, which offered consumers incentives of between $3,500 and $4,500 to trade up to a brand new car helped push sales up to an annualized rate of about 14 million a year with the primary beneficiaries being Ford (NYSE:F), Toyota (NYSE:TM), Honda (NYSE:HMC) and Hyundai. Both GM and Chrysler saw their sales decline.

More recent industry sales data now reveals that the incentives may have brought forward sales that would have otherwise happened in the fall. Early September sales have decelerated sharply to a roughly 8 million a year pace.

"Edmunds' SAAR of 8.8 million would be lowest in nearly 28 years

September's light-vehicle sales rate will fall to 8.8 million units, consumer auto site Edmunds.com said. That would be the lowest rate in nearly 28 years, tying the worst demand on record.

After the cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once -- in December 1981 -- with records stretching back to January 1976.

Amid a global recession, U.S. sales fell to 13.2 million units in 2008, from 16.2 million in 2007. The slide continued, with demand ranging from 9.1 million to 9.9 million in the first half of this year.

..... Now that consumers can't receive $3,500 to $4,500 for trading in gas guzzlers for new vehicles with better fuel efficiency, they aren't rushing to purchase vehicles, Edmunds.com analysts said."


In any stretch of a sustainable sales plan, that is NOT a success. What good does it do the industry,economy, or jobs sector? A spike does nothing for that, but clear inventory (exactly what an instant rebate is designed to do-but it always COSTS more than it provides profit)

It's an artificial spike that was paid for by tax payer dollars - so in effect, American consumers paid for their own rebates (or will) in a round about way.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

My point is that C280 Sport's comment that the feds couldn't run CFC (and thus can't run healthcare) is misplaced. The program was short-lived, but it worked.

Perhaps C280 should have used examples that are less debatable. For example Social Security (see attached chart), Medicare ($60B in fraud a year in 2007)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921 ,The USPS http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

These are all fine examples of government efficiency that truly cannot be debated. And you suggest that the answer is to take over a segment of our society/industry in which 85% are happy with?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Very little, if anything, on a go-forward basis. The amount contributed over their life varies dramatically, though, as FICA rates and incomes have gone up over time. In 2008 we all paid 2.9% (incl. employers' share, up to $100k or so in wages) into Medicare, with the caveat that we may never get to use the coverage if we meet our demise before reaching the qualifying age.


Honestly, I don't know how much voters know or assume about a public option. They should understand the concept that their private insurance premiums would be replaced in some way by a new tax (or government insurance premiums). And that it should probably be cheaper and more accessible - otherwise, what's the point?

So you don't think that the use of Medicare as the example would cause a person to instantly think "It's cheaper"?

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Well, it should be, as that's the intent of the public option. But the poll question used the words "like Medicare" which IMO is reasonable, as opposed to "costs no more than Medicare" or "dramatically reduces your out-of-pocket costs." These would be misleading.

Again, the average American knows Medicare is dirt cheap. Even millionaires sign up for it as soon as they can. When you say "like Medicare" you think it's reasonable to assume that the average American won't think it's cheaper? I think there's a bit of bias in what you think is reasonable.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Do you think a public option would be a cheaper, viable option for people? On the one hand, I've heard the feds can't be trusted to do anything right, they're sure to screw it up. On the other hand, I've heard that the gov't will have an unfair advantage over the poor insurance companies, driving out the competition. Which is it?

I have no question that in the short term a public option would be cheaper to an uninsured individual (or even an insured one paying out of pocket) than would a private plan. No question at all (see above reference to Medicare and millionaires). In the long term, we're all screwed.

However, like Medicare, regardless of what it charges the consumer, it still has the burden of cost. Medicare tells doctors what they will pay - whether that payment meets the costs of the provider is irrelevant. Those costs are then passed onto OTHER patients who pay, as a result higher premiums for their private insurance.

How will it drive insurance companies broke? The same way in which Chinese companies have severely damaged companies like Sony, Panasonic, etc. They offer the same product at 40-50% less causing the companies to have to match the pricing - driving some, like Philips out of the business.


As for the government's efficiency please see my previous post RE; Social Security, Medicare, and the USPS to name a few.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Oh, and it appears that doctors favor a public option, too, in a percentage that's similar to the NYT/CBS poll.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...-doctors.aspx#

New York Times and CBS. Hmmm. Aren't they the same ones who asked if people wanted something like Medicare? I'd like to see those questions.

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Undoubtedly, the wording of a poll question has lots to do with the results. Here's a recent, relevant example that dramatically affected the NBC/WSJ polls:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_263057.html

Oh, good one. good catch, but merely illustrates my point. This fool was exposed-good, but it certainly shows what can be done with polls if you try - kinda throws the NYT/CBS poll into question as well

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by LRM1

I am not suggesting that my experience is the end all be all and that it necessarily makes it statistically everyone elses. What I am saying is that people see things through their experiences. If 85% of people are happy with their insurance, then they don't see what the problem is and to push a social program through Congress (actually blind rush it through Congress) merely because you think you have enough votes to do it now, is irresponsible. Considering the $1.2 Trillion dollar deficit, unemployment about to hit 10% (the highest in 26 years) and the state of the dollar, spending $829B on a program that benefits 15% of the population is just plain stupid.

Statistics/polls are a reference point, but unless you know every factor in how they were derived, they aren't THE answer to everything.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you and C280 Sport both made statements that organ transplant wait times in Canada are longer than in the U.S., backed up with single data points (your father in law, and his parents' houseguest). I posted actual statistical data from what I believe to be relatively objective sources, that contradict your statements.

A significant part of your argument against the various health care reforms being proposed is the Gallup Poll results which support the "85% of people are happy with their insurance." Based on these results, you're fairly certain that reform isn't needed? Have you read the rest of the poll results? 42% of people with insurance said rising healthcare costs are a "major problem" for themselves, with another 37% saying it's a "minor problem." 38% of insured are dissatisfied with the cost of medical care. If you're a firm believer in these poll results, then I think it's fair to say that more than 15% of the population isn't too keen on their current plan.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Co...mericans.aspx#

Originally Posted by LRM1

Perhaps C280 should have used examples that are less debatable. For example Social Security (see attached chart), Medicare ($60B in fraud a year in 2007)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921 ,The USPS http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

These are all fine examples of government efficiency that truly cannot be debated. And you suggest that the answer is to take over a segment of our society/industry in which 85% are happy with?

Social Security in its current form is essentially a Ponzi scheme that has gotten out of whack as life expectancies have increased. The deficit will likely be addressed by removing or increasing the earnings cap. And basically all private retirement plans go through periods of being woefully underfunded. Pull up any publicly-traded company's 10-Q and see where their accrued pension liability is today, or look at your own 401k -- most of us aren't thrilled with where we are right now.

Medicare is in trouble because of rising healthcare costs, which the reform is supposed to address. Yes, fraud is a problem, but it's an industry-wide problem. The FBI estimates that 3-10% of all healthcare expenditres are fraudulent. If we take the mid-point, 6.5%, of $2.24T in expenditures, that's $145.6B, meaning $85.6B is attributable to private insurance - is private insurance an undisputed failure because it gets hit with fraud? While these are all estimates, I think it's ridiculous to imply that Medicare is the only insurer getting hit.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fina...007.htm#health

The USPS? Their problem is not in efficiency, it's in passing through rapidly rising fuel costs. Fedex and UPS can't and won't deliver a 1 oz. letter in 2 days for 44 cents, and they nearly instantly pass through rising fuel costs by way of surcharges. Does this mean the USPS is broken and hopeless? I don't think so. But their pricing mechanism needs to be updated to recover their variable costs, and people need to stop b*&^%ing about rising stamp prices.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Not to beat a dead horse, but you and C280 Sport both made statements that organ transplant wait times in Canada are longer than in the U.S., backed up with single data points (your father in law, and his parents' houseguest). I posted actual statistical data from what I believe to be relatively objective sources, that contradict your statements.

A significant part of your argument against the various health care reforms being proposed is the Gallup Poll results which support the "85% of people are happy with their insurance." Based on these results, you're fairly certain that reform isn't needed? Have you read the rest of the poll results? 42% of people with insurance said rising healthcare costs are a "major problem" for themselves, with another 37% saying it's a "minor problem." 38% of insured are dissatisfied with the cost of medical care. If you're a firm believer in these poll results, then I think it's fair to say that more than 15% of the population isn't too keen on their current plan.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Co...mericans.aspx#




Social Security in its current form is essentially a Ponzi scheme that has gotten out of whack as life expectancies have increased. The deficit will likely be addressed by removing or increasing the earnings cap. And basically all private retirement plans go through periods of being woefully underfunded. Pull up any publicly-traded company's 10-Q and see where their accrued pension liability is today, or look at your own 401k -- most of us aren't thrilled with where we are right now.

Medicare is in trouble because of rising healthcare costs, which the reform is supposed to address. Yes, fraud is a problem, but it's an industry-wide problem. The FBI estimates that 3-10% of all healthcare expenditres are fraudulent. If we take the mid-point, 6.5%, of $2.24T in expenditures, that's $145.6B, meaning $85.6B is attributable to private insurance - is private insurance an undisputed failure because it gets hit with fraud? While these are all estimates, I think it's ridiculous to imply that Medicare is the only insurer getting hit.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fina...007.htm#health

The USPS? Their problem is not in efficiency, it's in passing through rapidly rising fuel costs. Fedex and UPS can't and won't deliver a 1 oz. letter in 2 days for 44 cents, and they nearly instantly pass through rising fuel costs by way of surcharges. Does this mean the USPS is broken and hopeless? I don't think so. But their pricing mechanism needs to be updated to recover their variable costs, and people need to stop b*&^%ing about rising stamp prices.

None of this justifies the basic ethical dilemma of advancing socialist policies that do nothing but strip people of their individual liberties.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

None of this justifies the basic ethical dilemma of advancing socialist policies that do nothing but strip people of their individual liberties.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Not to beat a dead horse, but you and C280 Sport both made statements that organ transplant wait times in Canada are longer than in the U.S., backed up with single data points (your father in law, and his parents' houseguest). I posted actual statistical data from what I believe to be relatively objective sources, that contradict your statements.

A significant part of your argument against the various health care reforms being proposed is the Gallup Poll results which support the "85% of people are happy with their insurance." Based on these results, you're fairly certain that reform isn't needed? Have you read the rest of the poll results? 42% of people with insurance said rising healthcare costs are a "major problem" for themselves, with another 37% saying it's a "minor problem." 38% of insured are dissatisfied with the cost of medical care. If you're a firm believer in these poll results, then I think it's fair to say that more than 15% of the population isn't too keen on their current plan.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Co...mericans.aspx#




Social Security in its current form is essentially a Ponzi scheme that has gotten out of whack as life expectancies have increased. The deficit will likely be addressed by removing or increasing the earnings cap. And basically all private retirement plans go through periods of being woefully underfunded. Pull up any publicly-traded company's 10-Q and see where their accrued pension liability is today, or look at your own 401k -- most of us aren't thrilled with where we are right now.

Medicare is in trouble because of rising healthcare costs, which the reform is supposed to address. Yes, fraud is a problem, but it's an industry-wide problem. The FBI estimates that 3-10% of all healthcare expenditres are fraudulent. If we take the mid-point, 6.5%, of $2.24T in expenditures, that's $145.6B, meaning $85.6B is attributable to private insurance - is private insurance an undisputed failure because it gets hit with fraud? While these are all estimates, I think it's ridiculous to imply that Medicare is the only insurer getting hit.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fina...007.htm#health

The USPS? Their problem is not in efficiency, it's in passing through rapidly rising fuel costs. Fedex and UPS can't and won't deliver a 1 oz. letter in 2 days for 44 cents, and they nearly instantly pass through rising fuel costs by way of surcharges. Does this mean the USPS is broken and hopeless? I don't think so. But their pricing mechanism needs to be updated to recover their variable costs, and people need to stop b*&^%ing about rising stamp prices.

• 85% of the population ARE COVERED by some form of medical insurance. Polls as to them being concerned about rising costs are rather stupid, because the cost of EVERYTHING goes up and of course people are concerned by it.
  
• The Health care system is broken. No one disputes that. EVERYONE agrees that we need reform, we need to regulate insurance companies and we need to try our best to make sure that everyone who WANTS insurance can get it at a price that doesn't bankrupt them - NO ONE DISPUTES THIS. What is disputed is what is being proposed and "packaged" as "Reform" - government run healthcare. That is NOT reform, it is a fundamental change in the way this country functions - government MANDATING that you MUST have insurance whether you want it or not. And if you don't, upto a $3,500 fine and possible jail time.

Thank you for proving my point about Social Security and tying it into my overall point that government needs to stay out. It is a poorly run, stupid (liberal) government idea. You point to Private funds, which under perform as well - this is absolutely true. However with a private fund, you are FREE to NOT participate and to remove your money from said funds. Something the GOVERNMENT does not let you do (sounding familiar?)

As to Medicare, your own link states :
Health care fraud is expected to continue to rise as people live longer. This increase will produce a greater demand for Medicare benefits. As a result, it is expected that the utilization of long- and short-term care facilities such as skilled nursing, assisted living, and hospice services will expand substantially in the future. Since most if not all Nursing Home fees are paid by either Medicare or Medicaid, that lends to higher percentage of fraud in government run care. Never mind the fact that Medicare is more automated than private insurance and thus more susceptible to fraud - all you need is the right code. Again you FBI report shows a rate of 3 to 10% overall, which could easily amount to $60B for Medicare alone. In addition to the susceptibility of automation the False Claims Act even offers fraudster more of an opening by allowing anyone to allege fraud then receive a % of the savings the government sees as the result of shutting it down - Claims in Health and Human Services are the single fastest of all claims filed under FCA. Why? Simple. So Fraud exists everywhere yes, but while no solid data exists (and can't) that says Medicare is this percent or that of fraud, the openings for fraud are much larger in government run agencies than in privately run firms.

USPS- LOL. Duh. So the UPS can't support itself under rising costs and needs to charge more, in this way it could be successful? But then a government run health care system, that uses the same system of arbitrary price setting can be successful and self sustaining?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

We can split pubic hairs for as long as you'd like to continue this, but every single example you've shown thus far only strengthens my argument.

-We don't need a government run program to reform health care
-The government has failed in every attempt to run welfare agencies
-Private insurance may not be perfect, nor are retirement plans, but you, the consumer have the CHOICE to pick up your toys and play elsewhere.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you are in favor of removing individual liberties as one of the founding principles that should be protected and prized?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by MG

So you are in favor of removing individual liberties as one of the founding principles that should be protected and prized?

I would really like to know where the American "Civil Liberties" Union is through all of this.

Doesn't freedom to select what's best for your needs fall under a "civil liberty"?

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Social Security in its current form is essentially a Ponzi scheme that has gotten out of whack as life expectancies have increased. .

That's why we developed Swine Flu.

It's all planned out, don't worry.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by LRM1

USPS- LOL. Duh. So the UPS can't support itself under rising costs and needs to charge more, in this way it could be successful?

Don't mistake the USPS (United States Postal Service - Government run) with UPS (United Parcel Service - Public Company).

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

So you are in favor of removing individual liberties as one of the founding principles that should be protected and prized?

We will continue to disagree on the basic premise of what we think the government's role should be in healthcare, and safety nets in general. I don't expect LRM1, or you, to come around to my way of thinking, and that's perfectly fine with me. You can carry on claiming that the lefty-loos are a bunch of idiots, but somewhere behind your angry rhetoric, I think you know there are plenty of smart, well-meaning people on the other side of the argument.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

We will continue to disagree on the basic premise of what we think the government's role should be in healthcare, and safety nets in general. I don't expect LRM1, or you, to come around to my way of thinking, and that's perfectly fine with me. You can carry on claiming that the lefty-loos are a bunch of idiots, but somewhere behind your angry rhetoric, I think you know there are plenty of smart, well-meaning people on the other side of the argument.

You didn't answer my question. And "Government" is merely a catch all phrase which is conveniently used in place of the top earning 51% (and shrinking) of the American Public.