9-0

[TitanTiger 20,508]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

Germany uses private insurance firms....and premium or taxes...you act as if that is something different?   No matter how you look at it, it is prepaid medical care...and to think that the government is more efficient than private insurance carriers in processing claims.?  Surely you don't believe that....and I invite you to visit a VA hospital or two if you want to know how government runs healthcare.  

Germany's healthcare system is 77% government funded and 23% privately funded and is universal in coverage. 

And I never said taxes and premiums were different. That was my entire point. Yes, taxes go up, but private premiums go away and in the end they pay less per person for healthcare with better outcomes than we do and cover everyone. Somehow these countries manage to pull it off and yet the US isn't smart enough to take all of the collected experience of these places and do something as good or better and cover our people?

 

[Strychnine 1,803]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Germany's healthcare system is 77% government funded and 23% privately funded and is universal in coverage. 

And I never said taxes and premiums were different. That was my entire point. Yes, taxes go up, but private premiums go away and in the end they pay less per person for healthcare with better outcomes than we do and cover everyone. Somehow these countries manage to pull it off and yet the US isn't smart enough to take all of the collected experience of these places and do something as good or better and cover our people?

 

 

Smart enough?  Yes.  Disinterested?  Definitely.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

8 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Smart enough?  Yes.  Disinterested?  Definitely.

It just irritates me that an entire category of solutions gets dismissed out of hand with canards about socialism, the VA and so on.  As if we couldn't put our heads together and look at all the different countries who've managed to provide universal care for their people using variations on public, public/private, single payer, etc., learn from their mistakes and pitfalls, and craft a solution that could improve on them all.  The way the issue gets dismissed as if we were advocating for free yachts and caviar for everyone instead of a basic necessity that would benefit us all in the long run is just crazy.

[Strychnine 1,803]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

It just irritates me that an entire category of solutions gets dismissed out of hand with canards about socialism, the VA and so on.  As if we couldn't put our heads together and look at all the different countries who've managed to provide universal care for their people using variations on public, public/private, single payer, etc., learn from their mistakes and pitfalls, and craft a solution that could improve on them all.  The way the issue gets dismissed as if we were advocating for free yachts and caviar for everyone instead of a basic necessity that would benefit us all in the long run is just crazy.

 

I know I mentioned it earlier and in other threads, but we spend an insane amount of money on defense.  We could half our defense spending and still be spending basically twice as much as the world's second place spender.  $300 billion could be invested in healthcare, infrastructure, space exploration, or anything we deemed fit, without raising anyone's taxes at all.  It irritates me that there are people who fancy themselves "fiscal conservatives", and none of them seriously discuss cutting that golden calf.

That said, I agree with you completely.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

10 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

I know I mentioned it earlier and in other threads, but we spend an insane amount of money on defense.  We could half our defense spending and still be spending basically twice as much as the world's second place spender.  $300 billion could be invested in healthcare, infrastructure, space exploration, or anything we deemed fit, without raising anyone's taxes at all.  It irritates me that there are people who fancy themselves "fiscal conservatives", and none of them seriously discuss cutting that golden calf.

That said, I agree with you completely.

The problem with that, as President Eisenhower prophetically warned us 60 years ago, is that we've become dependent upon defense spending to prop up industry and jobs in too many areas of the country.  Make significant cuts - even if they make perfect sense and do not diminish our military capabilities to any real degree - and factories that build missiles, tanks, aircraft, and other weaponry and equipment close down.  People lose jobs, whole towns basically go under because it truly has become a "military-industrial complex" as Ike put it.  Even if the Army ends up buying hundreds of millions of dollars in tanks they can't use and don't want.

So no one is willing to touch it and the second you do, the defense lobby and their allies in Congress start screaming their fool heads off about how the bleeding heart liberals are letting our military rot on the vine so we can give free s*** to lazy people.  Does it matter that we already spend more on defense than the next EIGHT largest militaries in the world combined?  Nope.  Any cut of any significance is cast as the end of days and that China and Russia are going to kill us all if we do.

[Strychnine 1,803]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The problem with that, as President Eisenhower prophetically warned us 60 years ago, is that we've become dependent upon defense spending to prop up industry and jobs in too many areas of the country.  Make significant cuts - even if they make perfect sense and do not diminish our military capabilities to any real degree - and factories that build missiles, tanks, aircraft, and other weaponry and equipment close down.  People lose jobs, whole towns basically go under because it truly has become a "military-industrial complex" as Ike put it.  Even if the Army ends up buying hundreds of millions of dollars in tanks they can't use and don't want.

So no one is willing to touch it and the second you do, the defense lobby and their allies in Congress start screaming their fool heads off about how the bleeding heart liberals are letting our military rot on the vine so we can give free s*** to lazy people.  Does it matter that we already spend more on defense than the next EIGHT largest militaries in the world combined?  Nope.  Any cut of any significance is cast as the end of days and that China and Russia are going to kill us all if we do.

 

Meanwhile, we ensured that neither China or Russia would attack us by creating enough nuclear weapons to eradicate them both, before I was even born.  We have aircraft carriers beyond their capabilities, serving as museum ships.  That said, I agree with you yet again.  Is it not fascinating to think of what we might be capable of if we devoted that industrial capacity and research/development into something other than weaponry (I also apply that question to humanity in general)?

[TitanTiger 20,508]

8 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Meanwhile, we ensured that neither China or Russia would attack us by creating enough nuclear weapons to eradicate them both, before I was even born.  We have aircraft carriers beyond their capabilities, serving as museum ships.  That said, I agree with you yet again.  Is it not fascinating to think of what we might be capable of if we devoted that industrial capacity and research/development into something other than weaponry (I also apply that question to humanity in general)?

It's interesting to me when you think about how countries like Saudi Arabia have for so long failed to diversify their economies.  They are flush with money from oil all these decades but haven't invested very much of it at all to create other avenues of business for their population so that they aren't utterly dependent on one thing.  Yet here we are in the USA, unable to wean ourselves off of unneeded military spending despite having much more of a leg up than the Saudis do in this regard because we've allowed our jobs to become too dependent on it.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It just irritates me that an entire category of solutions gets dismissed out of hand with canards about socialism, the VA and so on.  As if we couldn't put our heads together and look at all the different countries who've managed to provide universal care for their people using variations on public, public/private, single payer, etc., learn from their mistakes and pitfalls, and craft a solution that could improve on them all.  The way the issue gets dismissed as if we were advocating for free yachts and caviar for everyone instead of a basic necessity that would benefit us all in the long run is just crazy.

The present system is 1/6th of the economy they say...and so many vested interests that in my opinion it is not going tp change to any great extent.  As for canards about the VA and socialism...in reality ..it is the truth about them that indictsd them.  The idea that somehow we can create an all star team of health care programs...mix and match from one country or anther is a fantasy ....if you read a bit about them...they are quite different and there is no national healthcare program of any quality that serves even a forth as many people as the US system with as geographically diverse a population. 

Not saying that we can't try to make things better...but the last "solution" to our health care problems did not last much more than 5 years before just about every significant econimic premeise it was based on proved to be false...and those responsible for providing the care started bailing out.  

Obamacare is a "dead man walking" and even the Dems know this... and are just hoping the US electorate will hold the GOP responsible for it's failure and not the people who put a doomed system into effect in the first place.   Obamacare allowed too many free riders in order to get their votes. No other country allows free riders like we do. IF you want a viable system, require everyone to buy the standard insurance...young included and don't fine them some pittance...make the fine equal to the annual cost of care and see what happens.  

[TitanTiger 20,508]

19 minutes ago, AU64 said:

The present system is 1/6th of the economy they say...and so many vested interests that in my opinion it is not going tp change to any great extent.  As for canards about the VA and socialism...in reality ..it is the truth about them that indictsd them.  The idea that somehow we can create an all star team of health care programs...mix and match from one country or anther is a fantasy ....if you read a bit about them...they are quite different and there is no national healthcare program of any quality that serves even a forth as many people as the US system with as geographically diverse a population. 

It's not a fantasy just because you say it is.  We have several decades of experience in other countries to draw from, with several different geographic and demographic factors.  Even with all the faults of their systems, they are still managing to pay far less per person, and see better health outcomes than we get.  There is no good reason why we can't see what's worked, what hasn't, what the bottlenecks and consistent problems are, and craft a plan of our own that takes into account our unique circumstances and avoids the worst of what the others have dealt with.  It's not a matter of being unable, it's a matter of willingness.

 

Quote

Not saying that we can't try to make things better...but the last "solution" to our health care problems did not last much more than 5 years before just about every significant econimic premeise it was based on proved to be false...and those responsible for providing the care started bailing out. 

Our last solution, and in fact all of our solutions, have failed because no one is willing to do what is necessary.  We have for profit insurance, pharma and hospitals pouring every ounce of effort they have into stopping significant change, or at least any change that doesn't make them more money, in its tracks.  We have members of Congress on the take from said lobbies.  We have a constant campaign of misinformation spread to the public to keep from altering the status quo.  We have both sides unwilling to compromise an inch.  And in fact one side refuses to even see universal coverage as a goal in the first place.  They are perfectly fine with viewing health as a luxury for those who can afford it.  So pointing to the ACA as a reason that we can't improve upon a single payer system used elsewhere, or adopt a tiered system of single payer with private supplementary insurance for those who wish to pay a bit more is just not sound reasoning.

[AU64 10,122]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not a fantasy just because you say it is.  We have several decades of experience in other countries to draw from, with several different geographic and demographic factors.  Even with all the faults of their systems, they are still managing to pay far less per person, and see better health outcomes than we get.  There is no good reason why we can't see what's worked, what hasn't, what the bottlenecks and consistent problems are, and craft a plan of our own that takes into account our unique circumstances and avoids the worst of what the others have dealt with.  It's not a matter of being unable, it's a matter of willingness.

 

Our last solution, and in fact all of our solutions, have failed because no one is willing to do what is necessary.  We have for profit insurance, pharma and hospitals pouring every ounce of effort they have into stopping significant change, or at least any change that doesn't make them more money, in its tracks.  We have members of Congress on the take from said lobbies.  We have a constant campaign of misinformation spread to the public to keep from altering the status quo.  We have both sides unwilling to compromise an inch.  And in fact one side refuses to even see universal coverage as a goal in the first place.  They are perfectly fine with viewing health as a luxury for those who can afford it.  So pointing to the ACA as a reason that we can't improve upon a single payer system used elsewhere, or adopt a tiered system of single payer with private supplementary insurance for those who wish to pay a bit more is just not sound reasoning.

Maybe or maybe not...but my view is definitely pragmatic politics in this country..and therefore represents sound reasoning too.  

Good luck pushing your ideas ....but meanwhile we have to deal with what can get enough votes to pass which is not going to be a system that does not exist on paper somewhere..much less in practice.  

Maybe some state could try a test case but never going to get all the free riders and folks who depend on their votes to do "what is necessary"...JMO

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Germany's healthcare system is 77% government funded and 23% privately funded and is universal in coverage. 

And I never said taxes and premiums were different. That was my entire point. Yes, taxes go up, but private premiums go away and in the end they pay less per person for healthcare with better outcomes than we do and cover everyone. Somehow these countries manage to pull it off and yet the US isn't smart enough to take all of the collected experience of these places and do something as good or better and cover our people?

 

None of the systems currently out there is perfect. Our system before Obamacare was not perfect and while Obamacare through the use of increased Medicare provided more people with coverage it hurt the existing insurer provided healthcare with cost going up dramatically for individual plans and company based plans. We like to blame insurance companies but many lost 100 of millions of dollars since Obamacare was put into place hence they are leaving the Obamacare arena.

We have to come up with something better than what we had before Obamacare and better than what we have with Obamacare. We should look at all existing plans out there and learn from them. Things they do well and things that they don't do well. The problem is we are so divided that nobody is willing to sit down and take input from both sides and come up with a decent plan. 

The other thing is that no plan will be perfect when you have a country as large as the US over 300 Million people living in many diverse communities Well to do Urban areas, Middle Class Urban areas, Poor Urban areas, different flavors of Suburbia, and then rural areas we will have issues.  This is a uniquely American issue not  republican issue, not a Democratic issue, not a conservative issue, not a liberal issue. It affects poor and rich it affects individuals and companies. What do we get in the Political arena Obstruction be it Democrats obstructing Republicans or Republicans obstructing Democrats.

Maybe its time for different groups to come together and workout a basic blueprint and present it to congress instead of congress trying to do it.

We need representatives  of individual Doctors, For Profit Hospital chains, non-profit hospital chains, Insurance companies, Unions, Nurses, Physician Assistants, some lawyers, Pharmaceutical interests, and a few lay people to represent everyday people. This groups first priority is analyzing costs and finding ways to improve costs without hurting medical care. Initially don't worry about who is paying. Is there a way to go to a streamlined billing process so Doctors, Hospitals, labs, etc don't have to spend as much on administrative costs,Come up with a true range of cost for  services, Litigation reform to cut down on test that are not needed and to improve cost of Mal-Practice Insurance, Some type of review board for Mal-Practice that serves the interests of both patients and doctors. 

[homersapien 11,416]

On 7/6/2017 at 10:11 AM, AU64 said:

The present system is 1/6th of the economy they say...and so many vested interests that in my opinion it is not going tp change to any great extent.  As for canards about the VA and socialism...in reality ..it is the truth about them that indictsd them.  The idea that somehow we can create an all star team of health care programs...mix and match from one country or anther is a fantasy ....if you read a bit about them...they are quite different and there is no national healthcare program of any quality that serves even a forth as many people as the US system with as geographically diverse a population. 

Not saying that we can't try to make things better...but the last "solution" to our health care problems did not last much more than 5 years before just about every significant econimic premeise it was based on proved to be false...and those responsible for providing the care started bailing out.  

Obamacare is a "dead man walking" and even the Dems know this... and are just hoping the US electorate will hold the GOP responsible for it's failure and not the people who put a doomed system into effect in the first place.   Obamacare allowed too many free riders in order to get their votes. No other country allows free riders like we do. IF you want a viable system, require everyone to buy the standard insurance...young included and don't fine them some pittance...make the fine equal to the annual cost of care and see what happens.  

You seem confused about the issue of "free riders" and Obamacare. Wasn't mandatory requirements for everyone to buy insurance one of the big objections the Tea Party crowd had to Obamacare?  

From what I understand about the Republican "plans" there will be many more free riders due to the opting out of the program all together. This will result in many, many more "free riders" than does Obamacare.

It sounds like you simply oppose the idea of affordable, universal coverage.

The only way to provide affordable, universal coverage is to require mandatory participation as we do for SS and income taxes.