OFFLINE

wow, I had no idea Springer was such a like this. I may have lost some respect for him. I'm not a fan of Hannity either, but I expected more from Springer. I would expect he would have something more to be passionate about than Universal health care.

OFFLINE

i coulda toldya he was a liberal douche.

OFFLINE

I really don't think UHC is the reason Europeans live longer. It maybe because they have more common sense not to eat like pigs at McDonald's everyday like a lot of Americans do.

OFFLINE

does it matter though? do those 2-4 years at the end of life really indicate that we're really lagging behind? and he said one thing in the video that particularly caught my attention, and i can't believe hannity didn't call him on it. he said that america has the best (medical) scientists and the best doctors. if i were hannity i would have asked him why he thinks that is. if america was (at one point) the only major country in the west without socialized healthcare, and america is the one with the best facilities and treatments, then what does that tell you? 1+1=2.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
does it matter though? do those 2-4 years at the end of life really indicate that we're really lagging behind? and he said one thing in the video that particularly caught my attention, and i can't believe hannity didn't call him on it. he said that america has the best (medical) scientists and the best doctors. if i were hannity i would have asked him why he thinks that is. if america was (at one point) the only major country in the west without socialized healthcare, and america is the one with the best facilities and treatments, then what does that tell you? 1+1=2.

I havent watched the video, so this is simply a response to your comments.  I would not be surprised if the United States does have some of the best medical scientists and doctors, however their presence does not mean the majority of Americans can afford to consult them.  Our scientific research is strong across the board because a) we have many prestigious public and private universities (prestigious schools attract better researchers, which kinda kicks off a positive feedback loop allowing the school to become more prestigious and in turn attract more high quality researchers and students) and b) there are several very powerful public (NSF, etc) and private (in this case pharmaceutical companies) funding sources that help cover research expenses.  We also have a large population of wealthy individuals who can afford the best possible medical care.  That said, I would like to reiterate that a large percent of Americans can neither afford the services of these great doctors nor the products invented by the researchers.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
however their presence does not mean the majority of Americans can afford to consult them.

this is just factually incorrect, as something like 85% of americans have healthcare insurance.

OFFLINE

The way it is now most Americans have good health service, but not all. So if we socialize it then everyone will have free health service. Notice I didn't say 'good' I'm sure the quality would go down a bit. It's probably not worth it.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
however their presence does not mean the majority of Americans can afford to consult them.

this is just factually, as something like 85% of americans have healthcare insurance.

Different insurance companies and plans allow access to different qualities of service.  I'm still on my parents Blue Cross insurance, so I have the ability to go to a good doctor of my choice.  It's good coverage (although the copay seems to keep going up), but its rather expensive.  Until recently my fiancee had Kaiser (which most people have because its cheaper).  With Kaiser she could only see a Kaiser doctor and could only fill prescriptions at the Kaiser pharmacy.  The quality of health care is renown for being incredibly hit and miss (I have a friend who works at her parents funeral home, and she has horror stories about 'clients' that came from Kaiser hospitals), but its all many can afford.

OFFLINE

I think no matter how we swing it, it won't be perfect. The mistake liberals seem to make is that they don't understand that there is really no way to eliminate greed. With our health service insurance companies are greedy. If we socialize it then politicians will be greedy. Honestly I think it's better off as it is now. I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:
I think no matter how we swing it, it won't be perfect. The mistake liberals seem to make is that they don't understand that there is really no way to eliminate greed. With our health service insurance companies are greedy. If we socialize it then politicians will be greedy. Honestly I think it's better off as it is now. I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government.

I liked the idea of having a base line coverage public option, where recipients rates would be the cost of operation (ie no net income or loss to government).  If people want better, they can opt out and pay more for private.  As some of the private insurers may be able to offer incentives they would stay in business, however the competition with a lower cost government option would help depress the private health care rates by offering competition.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
does it matter though? do those 2-4 years at the end of life really indicate that we're really lagging behind? and he said one thing in the video that particularly caught my attention, and i can't believe hannity didn't call him on it. he said that america has the best (medical) scientists and the best doctors. if i were hannity i would have asked him why he thinks that is. if america was (at one point) the only major country in the west without socialized healthcare, and america is the one with the best facilities and treatments, then what does that tell you? 1+1=2.

I havent watched the video, so this is simply a response to your comments.  I would not be surprised if the United States does have some of the best medical scientists and doctors, however their presence does not mean the majority of Americans can afford to consult them.  Our scientific research is strong across the board because a) we have many prestigious public and private universities (prestigious schools attract better researchers, which kinda kicks off a positive feedback loop allowing the school to become more prestigious and in turn attract more high quality researchers and students) and b) there are several very powerful public (NSF, etc) and private (in this case pharmaceutical companies) funding sources that help cover research expenses.  We also have a large population of wealthy individuals who can afford the best possible medical care.  That said, I would like to reiterate that a large percent of Americans can neither afford the services of these great doctors nor the products invented by the researchers.

Cost of services is one thing, but the root of the cause is a medical system that treats illness with big pharma's pill cocktail instead of just curing the ailment. This long term treatment is also a reason why many cannot afford treatment. Now with the new medical laws, that were pushed, supported and pretty much written by pharma companies,  it has gotten even worse. I used to be able to go to physical therapy every 2-3 years to get my back straightened out (got two lower disks that swell and bulge every now and again due to an old auto accident....flipped a truck 2 1/2 times....speeding greatly....had a blowout....totally my fault. A few months ago when it flared up again, I could no longer go straight to therapy, but instead had to take a battery of narcotic pills as treatment (somas and lortabs). If given a choice between pain and drug addiction.....well anyone need some somas or lortabs???

OFFLINE

i just can't believe we're having the healthcare debate again. what about all the new studies that say obamacare has actually increased the cost of healthcare, or what about medicare's chief actuary warning that you probably won't get to keep your doctor.

The Associated Press reports:  

    Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

    The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster not only works for the Obama administration but is also in fact the administration's principal authority on Medicare and Medicaid spending.  Elsewhere, he has estimated that, under Obamacare, the cost of Medicaid would more than double by the end of this decade, from $405 billion in 2010 to $840 billion in 2019 -- as Obamacare would add what Foster estimates to be "about 20 million" people to the Medicaid rolls. Moreover, he has warned that, under Obamacare, Medicare's reimbursement rates to health care providers would fall below even the notoriously low Medicaid reimbursement rates, thereby seriously jeopardizing Medicare enrollees' access to care.

Obamacare's more than $2 trillion price tag in its real first decade (aside from relatively minor changes made through the "reconciliation" process, this chart shows how Obamacare's spending would proceed) would be paid for, to the extent that it actually would be paid for, through a relatively even blend of tax increases and Medicare cuts. As Foster makes clear, you can't cut something that deeply without feeling the results in a profound way.

Dr. Herbert Pardes, president and CEO of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, the 6th-ranked hospital in the world according to U.S. News and World Report, echoes this opinion, warning: "I think there's a very real concern about having adequate numbers of Medicare doctors." Pardes says, "I think they [patients] will see delays in the timing of their appointments. I think a number of doctors who've been frustrated because of the Medicare fee level will actually stop taking Medicare [patients]. So that's a real worry for all of us."

this thing is bad for america and needs to be repealed. even if you believe in what obamacare is meant to address, it's a miserable failure.

OFFLINE

Out of curiosity, why was this ever labeled Obamacare.  If I remember correctly, didn't he argue for a public option and only reluctantly sign this mess of a compromise?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Out of curiosity, why was this ever labeled Obamacare.  If I remember correctly, didn't he argue for a public option and only reluctantly sign this mess of a compromise?

If you remember correctly, it was he who pushed and pushed for what we have. He was only a tad bit reluctant because he prolly realized just how many idiots had a hand in the bill and that those very same idiots didn't even know what was in the bill when they signed the bill.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:
I think no matter how we swing it, it won't be perfect. The mistake liberals seem to make is that they don't understand that there is really no way to eliminate greed. With our health service insurance companies are greedy. If we socialize it then politicians will be greedy. Honestly I think it's better off as it is now. I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government.

I liked the idea of having a base line coverage public option, where recipients rates would be the cost of operation (ie no net income or loss to government).  If people want better, they can opt out and pay more for private.  As some of the private insurers may be able to offer incentives they would stay in business, however the competition with a lower cost government option would help depress the private health care rates by offering competition.

Yeah the public option thing was something I was thinking about. The idea of it is pretty good. If they ever go through with it I hope they manage it well. I just don't it to lead to more ideas of it to where there will eventually be two Americas, a freemarket America and a socialized America. I think we know what that would lead to.