The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[Spekkio]

Actually very few countries do that, the only country that I am aware that does that allows it to happen openly is India, Canada and none of the major European countries does that. It is because the national health care systems there negotiate better prices that they are lower.

It's not just that...I have a friend who worked in a pharmacy for a couple years. He would routinely get some old person come up with a prescription where brand X cost a $10 co-pay and name brand Y had a $35 copay. The customers routinely would REQUEST the more expensive drug, despite the fact that they have the same active ingredients, and then proceed to complain to each other how their healthcare costs are rising out of control.

It's like the sucker who goes to best buy to purchase $100 Monster HDMI cables in lieu of ordering the same $10 HDMI cable online.

It's our fault, too.

 

[Ajleger]

I buy the 1.99 HDMI cables from newegg.com

Ill get more into the pharmaceutical stuff tomorrow. But suffice it to say that they need to make exorbitant profits on the successful drugs because most drugs are not successful. Sure, the largest companies do make decent profit margins, but their risks are generally more calculated. They are a lot more likely to buy ideas from smaller, lesser known companies, or buy the companies themselves. Most of the smaller companies fail. A few hit it big, but if there was no 'big' to hit, there would be no incentive for them to most likely fail. I'll try to post some links up tomorrow (not that its really worth us arguing about it, neither of us is going to change anybodys mind for the most part)

Although I read a pretty good argument for legalizing the direct importation of prescription drugs from Canada and Europe, as that could possibly force the drug manufacturers to stop giving them the extremely cheap drugs, and redistribute the costs equally. I'm sure it wouldn't quite work like that though.

 

[desertoasis]

Although I read a pretty good argument for legalizing the direct importation of prescription drugs from Canada and Europe, as that could possibly force the drug manufacturers to stop giving them the extremely cheap drugs, and redistribute the costs equally. I'm sure it wouldn't quite work like that though.

That sounds analogous to saying that legalizing marijuana will force drug dealers out of business by undercutting their profits...it's not a very good argument. Besides, the gov't would never approve direct importation...and certainly not with the current adminstration in charge. That would remove the government's control over the inflow of prescription drugs, and they would never allow that!!!

 

[Ajleger]

I know it would never get passed, I just found it to be a decent argument.

And I actually do favor legalizing drugs, and it would eliminate the illegal drug trade, as well as all that money that gets funneled to terrorism. Of course, every job should be able to choose to drug test. Kids would have less access to it (it's easier for young teens to get pot than alcohol), and the people who arent going to do it (like most of us here trying to become Naval Officers) aren't going to start.

 

[lowflier03]

Interesting article on the provisions of the 2 bills. Socialism we are well on our way.

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

By the way, in response to being able to keep your existing plan, those who fall under ERISA employers have a 5 year period before being dumped into the collective. Everyone else under private plans now can only remain in that private plan until some part of it changes, ie deductible, co-pay, coverage, drug plan, etc. Then you have to drop that plan and again be part of the collective. Progress? methinks not.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Interesting article on the provisions of the 2 bills. Socialism we are well on our way.

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

By the way, in response to being able to keep your existing plan, those who fall under ERISA employers have a 5 year period before being dumped into the collective. Everyone else under private plans now can only remain in that private plan until some part of it changes, ie deductible, co-pay, coverage, drug plan, etc. Then you have to drop that plan and again be part of the collective. Progress? methinks not.

Welcome to the collective.

 

[eddie]

That's highly abnormal.

Yes, it is.

Look, your original statement was "why would anyone want to consume healthcare without insurance?" There are many reasons: first, primary care is affordable for reasonably healthy people -- even the middle class. It's just that few people ever actually research this. They just see inflated insurance bills and watch Obama on CNN and think that they NEED insurance to afford primary care.

Separate point.

Possibly, but I wonder how useful an assesment that is. Do people buy it so much for their yearly check up or is it for that possible emergency?

Opting out of insurance doesn't make someone an "idiot." It just means that they can either afford the care out of pocket, or have weighed the risk: reward factor and chose to opt out.

It's a Pascal's wager thing. In cases where you did have a problem, in a good number of cases, I believe you would ultimately end up paying more without insurance.

 

[Ajleger]

Its obvious though that in most cases you must lose, because insurance companies do make money.

But for most people, it's still a good idea to have it. For those who have millions in the bank, not so much.

 

[wlawr005]

I am not too sure what you mean here, but who you make the check out to matters A LOT. The government does not play by the same rules as the businesses they would be 'competing' against. They can afford to run at a loss because they have taxpayer backing. Moreover, doctors already have to charge private insurance companies more for services because they get paid less from people with Medicare. Put more people on Medicare (essentially) and doctors will have to keep raising rates on private companies, which means they have to charge more to consumers. It's a pretty quick way to drive private business out. So then we have socialized medicine. I wouldn't want to compete with a government lemonade stand that sold their product below cost.

There are certainly valid arguments for universal coverage, but you fail to mention the inevitable rationing. It has been mentioned that it is a fact that there is a longer wait in Canada and Britain for medical procedures. Why do we think we would be able to avoid that fate? We don't have enough doctors as it is. Insure everyone, and pay less for each doctor visit, and we will really be in trouble. Some people are willing to make that sacrifice, and that's OK, but I am not.

I don't think it has been brought up on this thread (I misses a few posts, I may be wrong), but people also forget the impact on our drug industry. We often hear complaints about the high cost of prescription drugs, but thanks to our patent laws, some 90% of new drugs are developed in the US. Many other countries offer the same drugs cheaper because they ignore patent laws and produce their own generics. If the liberals make good on their promises to go after 'windfall' profits (as Mr. Waxman has declared 'equitable') of pharmaceuticals, cures for cancer, diabetes and male pattern baldness will be pushed back many years. It is a pretty solid law of economics: if you want less of something, tax it more - do we want fewer drug discoveries?

Let me say this about your views...

Government = Flaming pit

Do we really want to throw all that money in there?

For some reason (maybe Social Security) I don't think the government is the best decision maker when it comes to money...I'd rather burn my money than pay into another government program that is supposed to benefit everybody.

Social Security makes about $200 billion more a year than it spends, where is that surplus?

 

[scoolbubba]

The problem with Social Security is that it's like the suitcase in dumb and dumber. It was full of money at one point, then politicians rewrote the rules so they could get their greedy mitts on it and now it's full of IOUs.


"That's an IOU. This one here is 275,000 dollars for a car. Might want to hold onto that one!"

 

[Jynx]

Social Security makes about $200 billion more a year than it spends, where is that surplus?

Congress dips into the surplus and then some to fund other projects. They leave IOUs in place and figure some other budget maker at some later date will put the money back in. This way they can that the budget deficit is something smaller than it really is. If you subtract the money taken out of the Social Security fund, the government hasn't run a budget surplus in decades (This includes during the year Clinton essentially shut down the federal government)

 

[wlawr005]

Congress dips into the surplus and then some to fund other projects. They leave IOUs in place and figure some other budget maker at some later date will put the money back in. This way they can that the budget deficit is something smaller than it really is. If you subtract the money taken out of the Social Security fund, the government hasn't run a budget surplus in decades (This includes during the year Clinton essentially shut down the federal government)

Regarding my earlier posts from the first couple pages, this is exactly my point. The government has used the Federal retirement program as its own personal cash cow. That is exactly what they intend to do with the healthcare program.

 

[lowflier03]

Well, they are finally admitting that they may have to raise taxes to pay for this shitshow of socialist health care reform.

My favorite quote below. How the hell is giving away shitty, national healthcare a requirement to bring down the deficit? How about revamping welfare, creating a flat rate tax where everyone pays, fixing the way we give benefits to illegal immigrants, etc?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY?SITE=NEYOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

 

[scoolbubba]

Funny, I always thought the way to get out of debt was to make more money and spend less? Yep.. checked my credit card statements... my balances went away when I put on JG/ moved to jax and stopped hemorrhaging money in Corpus Christi.

Maybe I'm just a dumbass fiscal conservative though.

 

[Pepe]

Can someone PLEASE explain to my dumb ass how NOT passing gov't run healthcare is going to cause the federal gov't to go bankrupt? Cause I just don't get it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldne...-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html