Obama care?

[Shea]

Wow. I wonder how they define "disinformation"? I'm sure they'll straighten us all out.

I believe it is anyone who disagrees with their policies Dirk. As such I expect to be in a concentration camp by noon.


...and storming the wire by 12:01

[dirkterrell]

Ok, as I continue to look at the numbers, I continue to be somewhat surprised at what I see vis a vis what the government-run health care proponents say. For this round, I looked at the claim that it is the poor that are the ones that are being hurt by lack of insurance since richer people can afford it. But the Census numbers from the site that Cathy linked to tell a different story.

I went through the Census reports on health insurance and pulled out the numbers on total population, total number of uninsured, and the numbers of people without insurance in the four categories that the Census Bureau compiles:

<$25K
$25K-$50K
$50K-$75K
$75K+

I went back through 1995 since it appears they changed their reporting method and the numbers weren't given in the same way in previous years. But that gives us over a decade of data to look at. A graph (Shea claps) is the easiest way to see what's been happening:



So, what does it show us? First, the dark blue curve is the percentage of the population that is uninsured. That has remained essentially flat at about 15%.

The other curves show how the people in various income brackets have fared. The teal colored one is what most might call the "middle class" ($25K-$50K) and it also has remained relatively flat. That is, insurance coverage for the middle class is essentially the same today as it was in 1995.

The yellow curve shows the percentage of the uninsured population that makes less than $25, i.e. "the poor". They have seen what can only be called significant improvement, from ~45% of the uninsured population in 1995 to less than 30% in 2007.

The red and pink curves ($50K-$75K and greater than $75K respectively) show what has happened for "the rich". In the upper income bracket, the percentage of uninsured has nearly tripled. For all this talk about "the poor", it looks like we need to figure out why "the rich" have growing numbers of uninsured while "the poor" have seen decreasing numbers.

So, that answers one part of the question of the demographics of the uninsured. I have the Excel spreadsheet I created if anyone wants it.

Dirk

[DFab]

I have a good friend who is an ER doc in Vancouver. We have had many LONG discussions on the benefits of their health care system v. ours. Despite the glowing utopia that it is made out to be (especially when compared to our "heartless system") it does have some major drawbacks....

1. Care is not immediate. There is rationing as healthcare is a finite resource (as are all goods and services, econ 101). As my doc friend stated it, unless you are a hockey player or a friend you stand in line, a lot. GDP costs, which the article Cathy posted used to proclaim their system better, are transferred to the employer. Example, here I have a doctor's appointment, I'm gone for a couple hours. In Canada, I have a doctor's appointment, I take the day off because I'm waiting forever. The lost productivity is not reported because it's extreme in any sort of socialized system.

There's lost productivity in both systems. Sick people are less productive than healthy people. There is rationing in both systems as well. Ours is rationed by cost. If you can't afford it, you don't get it.

2. Canadian healthcare is run by the provinces not the central government. This makes it at least somewhat more responsive to the concerns of the customers then the bloated federal system(s) being proposed.

I thought this was a list of "major drawbacks" of the Canadian system.

3. Medical workers hate it. In order to manage costs, medical workers are forced to work long hours, under poor conditions for little pay (relative). Nurses, according to Mike (ER doc), are the hardest hit and quality of service suffers.

Plenty of people hate our system too. Ask a few doctors how they like dealing with private insurance companies. No system is going to be perfect. And nobody is forced to do anything, they can work in some other profession if they choose. It's not like they'll lose their coverage if they switch jobs.

Many of you want universal, single payer healthcare for a variety of reasons...fine. I am, obviously, passionately opposed to it on prinicipled reasons. Control is the fast track towards tyranny and universal healthcare is control in extreme. You want to poo-poo this point, cool. But answer me these...

Please don't conflate universal insurance with universal health care. This is a common conservative misconception.

1. If we give health insurance to 40+ million more individuals without increasing the number of doctors will the quality and availability of care increase or decrease?

Obviously, availability will decrease, and it's easy to argue that quality would also decrease, but the premise of your question is flawed. Who says we can't have more doctors?

2. If we give health insurance to 40+ million more individuals will the costs associated with heath care go up or down? Justify your answer with logic.

A well constructed single payer system will cost less and cover everyone.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_pay...t.php?page=all

3. If we force companies and individuals to have health insurance, at the same time increasing the cost of private insurance while offering a tax subsidized public option, what will happen to private insurance? Once again, justify your answer with logic.

You need to justify the many assumptions of your question. How are we increasing the cost of private insurance? How is the public option subsidized? The public option defined in current legislation is payed for through premiums. By law, it would have to set premiums at a level sufficient to cover all payouts plus overhead.

4. What has the government ever run that was more efficient, costed less and provided better service then the private sector?

The VA hospitals, medicare, medicaid. And please keep in mind that the service provided by private insurers includes doing everything they can to dump your ass as soon as you turn into a liability.

5. Despite the cries that our system is broken, that people are dying in the streets because we are a heartless society and our healthcare system is, frankly utter shit....Why do people come to our country, from Canada, Britian, etc, when they are sick? Why is it that if socialized systems are so beautiful and desirable that people with means don't want to be treated in them?

Our system works great, for those with "means". That's why they come here. Our system sucks, and frankly, is utter shit for people without "means". Unless of course you really lack "means", then your covered under medicaid. Besides, people leave our country to get health care too. Google "medical tourism".

6. What will be the economic costs associated with the various proposed bills? Are we willing to pay an additional 21% of our paychecks for an increase of 2 years for the aggregate life expectancy? What will an additional $1 trillion in debt do for our nation? What effect will the higher tax rates (for everyone) and debt servicing have on our economy in total?

Where does this "additional 21% for two years" come from? Sounds like it comes from the same place as "Obamacare is going to make all private insurance illegal!!!!!". I.E. Conservative FUD.

7. Please explain the origins of your right to my labor for your own ends. Further, explain the constitutional basis by which you can empower government to take my labor for your own purposes.

Section 8

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Collect taxes to pay debts for the “GeneralWelfare” (healthcare)and “Shall be uniform (universal) throughout the United States”. If healthcare fits Section 8 then we collect taxes and see to the “GeneralWelfare”.


Please explain to me why you don't seem to mind some socialized services, but when it comes to health insurance it's tyranny, control, and theft of your labor.

8. Will the further errosion of the individual in favor of the collective have any negative consequences? Will the constant drumbeat that we as individuals lack the capability to fend for ourselves, provide for ourselves, or have the power to generate comfort in our own lives, by our own hands, have any negative psychological impact what so ever? Would you teach your children this?

ANARCHY in the USA!! Whooo! But seriously, why have humans come together to live in society at all? Is it because we're better off when we work together towards common goals?

[dirkterrell]

Please don't conflate universal insurance with universal health care. This is a common conservative misconception.

If the government controls the insurance, they will control the health care industry.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

But seriously, why have humans come together to live in society at all? Is it because we're better off when we work together towards common goals?

True but government isn't the only means by which we can work together.

Dirk

[mtnairlover]

The free market system is a lovely concept, but put people into the mix and you get a completely distorted and abused system. That's what happened with the oil companies, Wall Street, housing/mortgages, etc.

The health care system is no different because it is run by health insurance companies whose bottom line is the almighty dollar, not American's overall health.

First, Pandora, I did not make my comment in reference to you. I made my comment in reference to the people talking in that town hall meeting. After listening to the reaction that first guy gave, you could tell he was disturbed, and that was an emotional reaction, which is typically an over-reaction. Not only that, but his claims were blown out of proportion.

The thing is, we have a problem and the problem has been around a very long time and although well-meaning politicians have tried to fix things, those fixes have done nothing to curb the rising costs of health care and health insurance.

Not only do we spend more of our GDP on health care, but so does our government. It outspends all the other nations that have a universal health care system.

The reason we use Canada as a model is because until they established their one-payer system, our numbers were mirror images. We come from the same ancestors, we have the same health-related issues, etc. But, in 1970, when Canada instituted its universal health care system, their numbers began to improve as far as birth and longevity. That’s why we use Canada as a comparison…that and because America is the stand out when it comes to universal coverage amongst industrialized nations, so it’s used a lot to compare good and bad on both sides.

There is a whole lot of information out there that explains why our health care/insurance system needs repair. I’m linking some of those reasons below:

Medical Bankruptcy

Reasons for foreclosure in the US


For comparison to Canada…

Bankruptcy in Canada

Foreclosure in Canada

And what about those pesky Canadians that keep coming over here to get their health care?

There’s not as many as you think…


This is only one chart covering a very specific health issue, but there are more, here…


More Americans leave this country who cannot afford the high cost of health care.

Again, the numbers of people who are medical tourists is rather small. But when you get to a U.S. border, the numbers stop being small very quickly. As UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research determined in a recent study, “at least 952,000 California adults – 488,000 of them described by the study as Mexican immigrants and about a quarter as non-Latino whites – head south annually for their medical, dental and prescription services.” And why are they going, aside from the obvious concerns of cost and lack of insurance? See if this resonates with you: “Among non-Latino whites, prescription drugs were the most common medical service obtained in Mexico.” Yeah, that’s right. We have American citizens going to Mexico to take advantage of their health care.

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/vi...outside_the_us
also
http://www.patientsbeyondborders.com/

So, why is it so important to fix the broken system? Because lack of affordable health care for all affects everyone, all companies, all institutes, everyone in this country. If you are sick and can’t afford the medical bills, how likely are you to buy that shiny new car? That’s not good for the auto makers. If you are sick and can’t afford medical bills, how likely are you to go to a restaurant once a week, once a month, once a year? That’s bad for the restaurant business…and the story goes on and on for all business in America and the numbers of people who cannot afford health care are constantly increasing.

Debunking the free marketeers...

What are the costs of not reforming health care?

An industry's answer to high health care costs..

Moderates explain single payer system:

A GOP Rep. admits that health insurance companies control the market and dictate medical decisions...

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012. Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[dirkterrell]

See if this resonates with you: “Among non-Latino whites, prescription drugs were the most common medical service obtained in Mexico.”

Which prescription drugs are we talking about?

Dirk

[Pandora-11]

I'm curious as to why out Canadian CSCers haven't voiced an opinion here. Bob? Canuck? any others?



The Ugly Truth about the Canadian Health care System (by a Canadian)

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_...ealthcare.html

[Pandora-11]

This Exhibit 1 is confusing to me. The author choose 136 clinics to call about ambulatory patients in three selected states that give numbers for a six month time period eleven years ago.....and even then the numbers probably reflect those who can pay to do this. Then it states the majority of the clinics show less than 100 patients. I don't know about you....but that doesn't look good to me. What am I missing?
Cathy, the two sources? One is an Obama site and the other is a software company sponsored by a Health company.
I don't know....I'm really trying to read these things objectively and having a hard time.

[BrianM]

I'm just some dumb new guy, but we already have 'free' (Gov Sponsored) health care in the US. IHS, or Indian Health Service. My wife has been a pharmacist in this Very messed up system for 6 years. We're not talking about 'theory' here, but real world practice.

Track down anyone with experience in that system for anecdotal evidence. There May be numbers out there to be analyzed, but I wouldn't have a clue where to find those.

Our opinion is.. well, our opinion. Just thought knowing that the US Gov. has already had their hand in a 'free' health care system would provide another data point.

[Shea]

There's lost productivity in both systems. Sick people are less productive than healthy people. There is rationing in both systems as well. Ours is rationed by cost. If you can't afford it, you don't get it.

"There is no system that provides for unlimited wants with limited resources. Our choice is whether it should be rationed by free people making their own economic calculations or by a bureaucracy run by Congressional committee (whose members, like the Russian commissars, will, I guarantee you, still get the best health care the gulag hospitaligo can provide). Free people making their own choices only consume what they value above price, using funds they have earned or been given voluntarily. With socialized medicine health care is rationed by committees of politicians trying to get re-elected and increase their own power, and people consume as much of it as the commissars deem permissible. I do not find these tough alternatives to choose between." - Clifford Asness, PhD Health Care Mythology Myth #6

http://www.stumblingontruth.com/

I thought this was a list of "major drawbacks" of the Canadian system.

No, the difference between the proposed federal system versus a province (state) run system there.

Plenty of people hate our system too. Ask a few doctors how they like dealing with private insurance companies. No system is going to be perfect. And nobody is forced to do anything, they can work in some other profession if they choose. It's not like they'll lose their coverage if they switch jobs.

Well perhaps you should reread the mandatory coverage required by the federal government. Sounds like being "forced" to do something to me. I'm glad that you acknowledge that no system is perfect. Given the alternatives I would prefer our "not perfect system" (with some tort reform, transparency of costs and some head cracking in the insurance industry) versus a government run single payer system that costs me another 21% of my paycheck.

Please don't conflate universal insurance with universal health care. This is a common conservative misconception.

As Dirk already stated, once they control the purse strings, they control the system. If I pay you and you have no option to go anywhere else, I can pretty much tell you to do anything I want, yes?

Obviously, availability will decrease, and it's easy to argue that quality would also decrease, but the premise of your question is flawed. Who says we can't have more doctors?

And what incentive is there to have more doctors? Over work? Less pay? Extremely stressful working environments? I'm sure they will be lining up at the door.
So you accept that availability will decrease and quality will decrease. So why are you pushing so hard for it?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...are_97244.html

Yeah, looks awesome! 23 hours of waiting????

A well constructed single payer system will cost less and cover everyone.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_pay...t.php?page=all

See below for the CBO report on the current round of plans. Not nearly as "optimistic" as all those posted by those gentlemen.

Also: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ah.vuAG5B4iU

You need to justify the many assumptions of your question. How are we increasing the cost of private insurance? How is the public option subsidized? The public option defined in current legislation is payed for through premiums. By law, it would have to set premiums at a level sufficient to cover all payouts plus overhead.

Private insurance will increase because a) the government will mandate levels of coverage and b) the government will not allow increases in costs for pre-existing conditions so the cost will have to be spread over the aggregate. Both of these will raise the cost of private insurance. Now the public option (that is not covered by premiums) is funded by tax increases, it's the only way to come up with the massive cost of the program.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

And that is after a 5.4% surcharge on the "rich" and closing various loopholes like not counting health insurance that a company provides as income.

The VA hospitals, medicare, medicaid. And please keep in mind that the service provided by private insurers includes doing everything they can to dump your ass as soon as you turn into a liability.

Are you really saying that VA hospitals are better, more efficient and provide greater care then a private hospital? Medicare/medicaid are going bankrupt, quality of care is pathetic and a bureaucratic nightmare.

Really? So government health care will be better at providing all the coverage you could ever want, whenever you want for lower cost? Delusional. Care MUST be rationed, just like in Canada, just like in Britain. If you are old, you're fucked. If you are a baby, you are fucked. Thing government care is all love and light? Read this about Dr. Ezekiel Emmanual, adviser to the President on health matters and (surprise) brother of the thug Rohm Emmanual:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-51414342.html

He further believes that babies, since they have not had the investment made into them in terms of education and "socialization" should be a lower medical priority then adolecents.

Yeah, I want these people in charge of my life...

Our system works great, for those with "means". That's why they come here. Our system sucks, and frankly, is utter shit for people without "means". Unless of course you really lack "means", then your covered under medicaid. Besides, people leave our country to get health care too. Google "medical tourism".

Then why the takeover for EVERYONE?

Where does this "additional 21% for two years" come from? Sounds like it comes from the same place as "Obamacare is going to make all private insurance illegal!!!!!". I.E. Conservative FUD.

21% increase in taxes to have a vaunted public/private insurance plan like France, from the conservative bastion of NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92419273

2 year increase in life expectency versus France from the consevative bastion of the United Nations:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...lights_rev.pdf pg81-83

Section 8

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Collect taxes to pay debts for the “GeneralWelfare” (healthcare)and “Shall be uniform (universal) throughout the United States”. If healthcare fits Section 8 then we collect taxes and see to the “GeneralWelfare”.

Welfare, in 1787 didn't mean redistribution of wealth, or welfare as it is known today (or how you take it to justify massive government power). In federalist 41, James Madison stated that the only purpose of the clause was to empower Congress to promote the welfare of the state, not the individual (ie. justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty).

I'd like to see how you justify our current progressive income tax system as uniform.

Additionally I like how you completely ignored the first part of the question.

Please explain to me why you don't seem to mind some socialized services, but when it comes to health insurance it's tyranny, control, and theft of your labor.

Please explain what socialized services I "don't seem to mind". Further please explain how government forcing me to adhere to your ideal, denying me choice over my own life and forcing me to take responsibility for others actions/choices/life as NOT tyranny.

ANARCHY in the USA!! Whooo! But seriously, why have humans come together to live in society at all? Is it because we're better off when we work together towards common goals?

We have come together because it is advantages for us in pursuing our INDIVIDUAL goals. Individual liberty is the common goal. When you start trying to control me, then that is lost. But what common goals do you think we all should work together on?

[mtnairlover]

I dunno. I would like to ask Canadians and Britons and other Europeans their thoughts on their health care systems and see what they say...

Canadians thoughts on their health care...
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...thread=3122851

Britons thoughts on their health care...
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...2110154AAcddxi

What Europeans think of our health care system
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0101532AA7liL5

What Germans think of their health care system
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcr...oryId=91971406

The Dutch and the French health care systems
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09207/986169-109.stm

What's so important to note is that the systems are different. Britain is a truly government-run system where the government employs the Drs (and yet, the British still prefer their system). The Canadian system is a truly single-payer system. France and the Netherlands are also different, but do not resemble Canada, or Britain.

As for finding articles that sway on the Obama side...a lot of those links I found are studies done by PhDs that were not conducted for Obama, but for research purposes.

And as for that YouTube video...those negative reactions make no sense, because right now, our rights are being dictated by our insurance companies...we are not in control of our own health care, the insurance companies are...not the government.

As far as what kinds of prescriptions are sought after in Mexico? I have no idea, but I found some info that sort of answers that question. I'm sure there's more info out there that more than likely has a break down of the numbers as to the people buying the meds cuz they're addicted as compared to those who just need it cheaply.

One person asks about buying meds in Mexico...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7223832AAEGwNj

Biggest reason for buying meds elsewhere? Price.
http://drugs.about.com/od/costofdrug...eign_drugs.htm

And here's an article that talks about the restricted drugs that people can buy...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...5&slug=2539314