Why is Healthcare such a big deal anyway?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
independentthinker is offline independentthinker Post #11  November 2,2009, 5:32pm
independentth…'s Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 28

See profile

saulgoode wrote :
Why do the Liberals want to put healthcare under federal supervision?

Why do the Conservatives oppose it so much?

There aren't ethical reasons, don't argue that. If you think anything in our federal gov't is done out of "goodwill," then you are naive.

The Federal Liberals want the ~control~ and the ~income~ from healthcare in the US, crossing state boundaries, and it has always been one of their top priorities at the Federal Level (NOT always at the State Level, mind you, though it weighs heavily in our Far East and Far West blue states).

Why do the Federal Liberals want healthcare so much, and why is it the first thing they go after every time they gain control of congress?

Why is controlling our healthcare industry at the heart of the Liberal charter?


- Saul
Is this question a joke?

What is a "Federal Liberal"?

Are you advocating de-regulation of the healthcare and insurance industries? Do you view them as one and the same?

Actually, I think I would love to see all government medical programs abolished, and all rules governing insurance industry practices rescinded. It would be the fastest way to get single-payer in this country if every person had to do battle against the insurance and healthcare industries alone, with no case law and the courts to turn to when they get screwed.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #12  November 3,2009, 6:35am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

 
  Reply With Quote
saulgoode is offline saulgoode Post #13  November 3,2009, 9:20am
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,308

See profile

Statistically, only 10% of the people in this country lack healthcare.

So that means 90% of us are covered.

Not bad, eh.

If you're not covered, there are already low-cost options, or you can find a job that offers healthcare coverage. Badabing.

I just find it baffling that the left wants healthcare so bad, that they're willing to stake both Clinton's and Obama's presidencies on the matter.

Really, who cares?

Regulation? That doesn't work. There are always means to get around regulation.

What you need is competition. That works. Allow a Georgia insurance agency to cover Texans, and you'll see prices drop dramatically.

What you need is to protect our doctors from plaintiff lawyers. Reduce the lawsuit abuse, and you'll see a large percentage of your costs removed.

Or, even better, do away with insurance entirely. If you cannot afford treatment, you don't get treatment. Hell, it's not a ~right~ that's guaranteed to anyone who can cross our border.

The bottomest bottom-line end-of-the-line be-all problem is that people are demanding treatment they cannot afford, and suing doctors for money they don't have, and we're running out of other people's money.

And now we have an entire party dedicated to tapping into our Federal Reserve to keep doling out other people's money for things someone else cannot afford, and it just baffles me: Why?

Votes? Is that all there is to this? Get more votes?

What is the bottomest motivation for the liberals? Why do they want to do this so very, very, very very badly?


- Saul
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #14  November 4,2009, 4:54pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I agree with Schiff that we'd be better off with insurance being out of the hands of employers. That is the biggest thing that I want to see from reform. Without that occurring I will likely not be a fan of the reform that we initially get.

I do worry that the more that the public resists reform the less reform we will get resulting in a far less effective reform. Small steps only yield restricted benefits.

Many moderate to conservative proposals for reform only offer a short-term aids that will have to be manipulated every couple of years because costs will still be rolling out of control.

I do want to see that system blown up & restructured. A minor shift will not produce a noticable difference & will not raise quality of life.

I disagree with Schiff that the government is the cause of the 10-20% yearly increases in costs.

Government may be involved but not as much as the nature of Corporatism.

I don't believe that costs would go down much due to interstate competition. First off the costs of living will not change so I would always pay more than someone in a more rural area. It costs more to live where I live, costs for healthcare providers are still going to be the same. Secondly, heads of the insurance industry would not allow companies to significantly lower the costs of premiums because that would be a really bad long-term approach & would lower overall profits industrywide. It is naive to think that those large insurance companies would not work together to crush those that tried to undercut them. They would exert extreme power to do so. Every industry works under certain guidelines across the board to ensure success.

Doctors do the same thing. They do not undercut each other very much as most procedures have a going rate & shopping around is not very advantageous. I do believe that MD's would advertise their costs much more often if they actually offered a greatly reduced service.
 
  Reply With Quote
D_Lion is offline D_Lion Post #15  November 4,2009, 5:44pm
D_Lion's Avatar

- Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Joined: Aug 2008

NJ

Posts: 30,721

See profile

Still waiting for the intelligent answers!

UK spends half what US spends with identical outcomes.

Average US household spends about $15 k.

Therefore UK-style reform = $7,500 pay increase for you.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #16  November 4,2009, 6:10pm
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
I agree with Schiff that we'd be better off with insurance being out of the hands of employers. That is the biggest thing that I want to see from reform. Without that occurring I will likely not be a fan of the reform that we initially get.

I do worry that the more that the public resists reform the less reform we will get resulting in a far less effective reform. Small steps only yield restricted benefits.

Many moderate to conservative proposals for reform only offer a short-term aids that will have to be manipulated every couple of years because costs will still be rolling out of control.

I do want to see that system blown up & restructured. A minor shift will not produce a noticable difference & will not raise quality of life.

I disagree with Schiff that the government is the cause of the 10-20% yearly increases in costs.

Government may be involved but not as much as the nature of Corporatism.

I don't believe that costs would go down much due to interstate competition. First off the costs of living will not change so I would always pay more than someone in a more rural area. It costs more to live where I live, costs for healthcare providers are still going to be the same. Secondly, heads of the insurance industry would not allow companies to significantly lower the costs of premiums because that would be a really bad long-term approach & would lower overall profits industrywide. It is naive to think that those large insurance companies would not work together to crush those that tried to undercut them. They would exert extreme power to do so. Every industry works under certain guidelines across the board to ensure success.

Doctors do the same thing. They do not undercut each other very much as most procedures have a going rate & shopping around is not very advantageous. I do believe that MD's would advertise their costs much more often if they actually offered a greatly reduced service.
Government being involved is corporatism.

The costs would go down. People would shop for the cheapest. Companies and doctors will want more business and more money. So the cheaper they can offer their service the more money they can make.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #17  November 4,2009, 6:11pm
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Still waiting for the intelligent answers!

UK spends half what US spends with identical outcomes.

Average US household spends about $15 k.

Therefore UK-style reform = $7,500 pay increase for you.

 
  Reply With Quote
saulgoode is offline saulgoode Post #18  November 4,2009, 6:30pm
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,308

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Still waiting for the intelligent answers!

UK spends half what US spends with identical outcomes.

Average US household spends about $15 k.

Therefore UK-style reform = $7,500 pay increase for you.
You spend $15,000 on healthcare?

I pay $50/mo per person on mine. My employer docs me about $100/mo on top of that.

I don't come out nearly to $15,000, even for a family of 4.

Why not?

Because I keep high, oh-sh.t style deductibles, and I limit my time seeking care.

In other words, I DO NOT seek treatment I neither need, nor can afford.

That's the problem. Those videos Dito put up say the same thing.

We're buying too many things we cannot afford. Quit being a nation of whiners, pay for your cr.ap, make the states stop monopolizing the industry, take away the fed gov't altogether, and let's be done with this problem.

I don't see what the big deal is, or why it's so complicated.


- Saul
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #19  November 4,2009, 7:46pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I would estimate that families here are spending about 6K on premiums per year. Their employers match that.

Then with co-pays & scripts it depends on the family & their needs. It is likely a couple hundred per month.

Some may pay $15 per visit & script but many have increased to $25 apiece.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #20  November 4,2009, 8:05pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

dito wrote :
Government being involved is corporatism.

The costs would go down. People would shop for the cheapest. Companies and doctors will want more business and more money. So the cheaper they can offer their service the more money they can make.
With Connecticut having one of the largest concentration of insurance companies in the country, the competition has very little effect. You can go out & shop around but will find little difference with each charging more yearly for less service.

I think that you overestimate the willingness for any company to reduce its pricing. Even with growing profits it is very rare for a company to not accept the extra profit. They often do not pass savings onto their clients.

You say that government involvement is corporatism but that would not equate to a change at all then. Health care is that now & would be that after any bill is passed.

I can also tell you that a doctor wanting more patients is NOT a good thing in health care. It is very bad as I have seen offices that will never turn down new patients.

They cannot handle the volume that they currently have & the only thing that more volume accomplishes is less care.

I have seen them take on an obscene amount of newcomers while being unwilling to spend the money to hire more people to handle such volume. They don't mind if their is no personal involvement with the patient or if the see you for 5 minutes & never return your phone calls.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Question: Why is socialism bad? The1Tomcat Politics 401 October 4,2010 3:08pm
Dating Deal Breakers! fireheart35 A Man's Point of view 42 April 22,2010 5:51pm
Deal breakers or no? Shepherd3597 Relationships 9 September 23,2009 5:13pm
Vote On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Intelligent Conversation 2 August 24,2009 6:18am
Vote For Your Choice On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Chit Chat 0 August 19,2009 10:47pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:11am.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0