Quick Poll

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and as the report said, medical costs have exploded, while we have gotten no healthier. i think one issue is that doctors call for every test under the sun, even when not needed, to cover their ass if something odd was to pop up in future with a patient.

We do have some of the most expensive healthcare in the world. 1/5 of our economy is healthcare. In other first world countries, it's half that.

That's why things like letting the gov. bargain for drugs would save billions or Medicare. And frankly? Opening up Medicare would be cheaper.

We have to get the exchanges opened up - see what more direct competition between the privates does to the prices.

We have to remember how our healthcare system is set up: insurance companies are only profitable when they are denying you healthcare; and drug companies are most profitable when they have the newest, limited availability drugs on patent.

Neither health insurance companies nor pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping you healthy. The US healthcare system is set up NOT to keep you healthy. It only profits when you are SICK.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Neither health insurance companies nor pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping you healthy. The US healthcare system is set up NOT to keep you healthy. It only profits when you are SICK.

I even heard that all the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are buying the fast food joints to clog everybody's arteries faster. They also run all those Cheetos commercials so that all the couch potato welfare recipient types can pack on some extra pounds.

Yeah, that's a real conspiracy going on there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I even heard that all the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are buying the fast food joints to clog everybody's arteries faster. They also run all those Cheetos commercials so that all the couch potato welfare recipient types can pack on some extra pounds.

Yeah, that's a real conspiracy going on there.

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself with nothing.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself.

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

exactly. when someone goes on and on about health care in other countries and ignore's that fact... I completely disregard their opinion.

[Antitrust32]

I've lived in two countries with socialized medicine. Ireland and New Zealand. Both places made me long for American health care. The care was terrible and you have to wait FOREVER for appointments.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I've lived in two countries with socialized medicine. Ireland and New Zealand. Both places made me long for American health care. The care was terrible and you have to wait FOREVER for appointments.

Sort of like the 60 million people in America who have no insurance, and thus can only get minimal emergency care if that?

Oh, wait. No, it's not like that at all. You have insurance so you stroll right into a doctors office by just calling for an appointment.

We don't need to imagine what it's like for those terrible lazy people with cancer or lifetime disability or serious disease who can't get insurance, let alone regular medical care.

Most of the bankruptcies in this country are related to medical bills. Most of those bankrupt people have insurance.

America should be ashamed of our health care system, that's only for the elite and the "haves". And those trying to repeal minimal insurance company standards so they can no longer abuse their clients in certain ways to profit from them (the ACA) - what are you playing at? Do you hate - or care so very little - about your fellow Americans so very much, you want to deny them the basic human need of health care?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

exactly. when someone goes on and on about health care in other countries and ignore's that fact... I completely disregard their opinion.

When someone goes on and on about the vast totality of healthcare in other countries around the world - cost, delivery, quality, etc. - based only upon their minimal personal experience with short-term work visas - I completely disregard their opinion

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

When someone goes on and on about the vast totality of healthcare in other countries around the world - cost, delivery, quality, etc. - based only upon their minimal personal experience with short-term work visas - I completely disregard their opinion

well at least I have personal experience.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

What number of people do you think is limiting for having a single payer system,and why? (not "nationally" provided health care)

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What number of people do you think is limiting for having a single payer system,and why? (not "nationally" provided health care)

300MM is way too many, even half that is way too many. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, like virtually everything else our government is currently responsible for. If the population growth continues at the rate over the last 30 years (mathematically it will expand much faster) we will have 450MM by 2040. Then what, huh?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

300MM is way too many, even half that is way too many.

Based upon what? Do you have anything to back up your purely arbitrary, pulled-from-a-hat choice of figures?

It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, like virtually everything else our government is currently responsible for.

The "government" is responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, our veterans (TRICARE) and SCHIPS. They seem to do pretty damn well. Not perfect, but damn - those are some good programs. My parents get their Social Security check like clockwork on the same date every month. They go to the doctor, and submit their Medicare claims. No "bureaucratic nightmares" involved at all. Quite reliable, predictable and easy, in fact.

You want to eliminate them all, I suppose?

If the population growth continues at the rate over the last 30 years (mathematically it will expand much faster) we will have 450MM by 2040. Then what, huh?

Then we have to believe your arbitrary numbers have already been proven as true, why?

We could have more healthy people in the pool lowering cost and risk for everyone.

Or, population could level out, as is predicted by nearly everyone (not the growth you are saying will happen)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

i wonder how much money other countries put towards their defense programs, knowing how much of the worlds spending belongs solely to the u.s.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself with nothing.

Can't wait until the government controls healthcare instead of the "insurance companies and drug companies". That will be SO much better...

Who's issuing this AAA rating you speak of? Does "NICE" of UK get that great rating too, even though cancer deaths there are much higher than ours, and the waiting list for certain treatments is in years? Other than organ transplants, we don't tend to have that here. Or I should say we didn't have that here.

ObamaCare will rightfully be an albatross around the neck of those who supported it and the political party who rammed it down the throats of the people for a long time to come.

And if you think socialized medicine will do anything but SUCK, you're nuts.

[GenuineRisk]

Danzig, I'm curious as to where you read that statistic that entitlements currently take 60 percent of the federal budget, as I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm not saying you didn't report it correctly; I'm questioning the source where you read it. Most of the mainstream media, honestly, are idiots and don't understand statistics well enough to report on them.

According to factcheck.org, which is a vehmently non-partisan site I do trust:

"The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising."

Large, but not 60 percent. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the report you read was saying, which is why I'd love to see the original link if you remember where you saw it.

Here's the link to the Factcheck page, which gives a good historical perspective on where we are now in relation to taxes and revenues:

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

I do have problems with them lumping SS and Medicare together, as they are two different programs and are funded differently, but it's overall a decent enough article.

Prior to Social Security, the poverty rate of the elderly was over 50 percent, and now, thanks to Social Security, it's 1 in 8 (about 12 percent). That's still high, but nowhere near what it was. And Medicare, a socialized health care program, not only protects the elderly's finances, but protects anyone who has an elderly relative. Get rid of Medicare, and you're basically imposing a 100 percent inheritance tax on the middle class, as many people will wipe out their own savings in order to pay for Mom or Dad's health care in the last six months of life. Or have to say to Mom and Dad, "Sorry; we can't afford dialysis so I hope death by toxic shock isn't too awful for you. Love you, Mom!"

Economic mobility is more difficult in the United States than it is in Europe. Whatever economic class you're in right now is likely the one you'll die in. If you're currently living in a mansion, you'll probably die in one. If you're currently living in a trailer park. you'll probably die in one. You can tell yourself otherwise, but that's how it is, and all the lottery tickets in the world aren't going to do anything other than take another $1 out of your pocket. SS and Medicare offer the elderly some small bit of security at the point in their lives when they are more likely to have difficulty getting work, not least because our nation is very biased against the elderly.

Now, the SS Disability program is in terrible trouble, and if I were a person on Disability, I'd be sweating bullets right now. But part of what is hurting it is raising the retirement age, as that pushes more people onto SS Disability.

And Medicare's problem isn't Medicare, which costs less than private insurance; it's the rising cost of health care, which Medicare doesn't have anything to do with. We have to tackle the cost of health care, not the existence of Medicare. The Health Care Act does start to tackle the cost of health care. Not as well as it could, but it's, at least, a start.

I'm working freelance this year, and it sucks that I'll be liable for the full 15 percent of Social Security payment, as we're just squeaking by right now, but that's the way it is. I'd rather have the program than not have it. My parents having a retirement that does not involve them having to move in with me because they can't afford their house anymore is a heck of a benefit I get now. SS helps give me, and them, that.

[clyde]

I love it when you talk dirty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, I'm curious as to where you read that statistic that entitlements currently take 60 percent of the federal budget, as I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm not saying you didn't report it correctly; I'm questioning the source where you read it. Most of the mainstream media, honestly, are idiots and don't understand statistics well enough to report on them.

According to factcheck.org, which is a vehmently non-partisan site I do trust:

"The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising."

Large, but not 60 percent. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the report you read was saying, which is why I'd love to see the original link if you remember where you saw it.

Here's the link to the Factcheck page, which gives a good historical perspective on where we are now in relation to taxes and revenues:

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

I do have problems with them lumping SS and Medicare together, as they are two different programs and are funded differently, but it's overall a decent enough article.

Prior to Social Security, the poverty rate of the elderly was over 50 percent, and now, thanks to Social Security, it's 1 in 8 (about 12 percent). That's still high, but nowhere near what it was. And Medicare, a socialized health care program, not only protects the elderly's finances, but protects anyone who has an elderly relative. Get rid of Medicare, and you're basically imposing a 100 percent inheritance tax on the middle class, as many people will wipe out their own savings in order to pay for Mom or Dad's health care in the last six months of life. Or have to say to Mom and Dad, "Sorry; we can't afford dialysis so I hope death by toxic shock isn't too awful for you. Love you, Mom!"

Economic mobility is more difficult in the United States than it is in Europe. Whatever economic class you're in right now is likely the one you'll die in. If you're currently living in a mansion, you'll probably die in one. If you're currently living in a trailer park. you'll probably die in one. You can tell yourself otherwise, but that's how it is, and all the lottery tickets in the world aren't going to do anything other than take another $1 out of your pocket. SS and Medicare offer the elderly some small bit of security at the point in their lives when they are more likely to have difficulty getting work, not least because our nation is very biased against the elderly.

Now, the SS Disability program is in terrible trouble, and if I were a person on Disability, I'd be sweating bullets right now. But part of what is hurting it is raising the retirement age, as that pushes more people onto SS Disability.

And Medicare's problem isn't Medicare, which costs less than private insurance; it's the rising cost of health care, which Medicare doesn't have anything to do with. We have to tackle the cost of health care, not the existence of Medicare. The Health Care Act does start to tackle the cost of health care. Not as well as it could, but it's, at least, a start.

I'm working freelance this year, and it sucks that I'll be liable for the full 15 percent of Social Security payment, as we're just squeaking by right now, but that's the way it is. I'd rather have the program than not have it. My parents having a retirement that does not involve them having to move in with me because they can't afford their house anymore is a heck of a benefit I get now. SS helps give me, and them, that.

not sure where i read it, i've been to so many sites lately on all this. not sure if it's in the cbo that i posted quite a bit from in another thread. but i did find this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...n_entitlements
but not sure how accurate that is...however, i'd have to think the 60% is found in something i've put on here lately. if i used that number, i got it from somewhere.


edit~ went to the start of the thread, and sure enough-i said it came from a cbo report.