Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know what would be more terrifying? A US 'federal' government mandated health care system.

This should be a state issue anyways. No way the Federal Government could deal with health care without screwing something up.

I don't expect perfection, Canada's health care system is far from perfect. BUT, this should be a federal issue. You can't have states with different systems, you cannot be serious on that.

Why the hell would I want to pay over $300 a month on health care that isn't guaranteed to me?

What a joke, you must sell insurance for a living.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

I don't expect perfection, Canada's health care system is far from perfect. BUT, this should be a federal issue. You can't have states with different systems, you cannot be serious on that.

Why the hell would I want to pay over $300 a month on health care that isn't guaranteed to me?

What a joke, you must sell insurance for a living.

And, as a taxpayer someone will be paying $666/month for the government program, and the kicker is if you don't like it.....too bad. They won't shut it down. Nor will they make sure it works like it should.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

I don't expect perfection, Canada's health care system is far from perfect. BUT, this should be a federal issue. You can't have states with different systems, you cannot be serious on that.

In Canada, the provinces each run their own health care system.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

In Canada, the provinces each run their own health care system.

However, they all have to follow the Canada Health Act.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

However, they all have to follow the Canada Health Act.

Which is okay.

Nothing wrong with Federal Health act that demands a certain level of care from each province. But it would be INSANE, if the Canadian Government was in charge of Health Care in each province.

And we only have 30 million people.

[starseed]

I think the main issue was that the provinces wanted control of their own system. It was a unity issue. The US just does not have that unity problem.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

I think the main issue was that the provinces wanted control of their own system. It was a unity issue. The US just does not have that unity problem.

Really?

There are quite a few states that are likely to fight back if the Federal Government tries to force this health care system on them.

[starseed]

Quebec voted to separate twice, and as Mercer once pointed out, people in Alberta had bumper stickers saying 'the west wants in' now they say 'the west wants out'.

Texas and Alaska may have fringe separatists groups, but it is not at the scale it is in Canada. The dominant American culture and world influence do a great deal of damage to seperatist movements down there.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

Quebec voted to separate twice, and as Mercer once pointed out, people in Alberta had bumper stickers saying 'the west wants in' now they say 'the west wants out'.

Texas and Alaska may have fringe separatists groups, but it is not at the scale it is in Canada. The dominant American culture and world influence do a great deal of damage to seperatist movements down there.

I disagree.

A lot of the southern states are very much in favor of strict state rights.

Look at how many of them wanted to refuse the stimulus money until Obama forced them to take it.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Azure

And, as a taxpayer someone will be paying $666/month for the government program, and the kicker is if you don't like it.....too bad. They won't shut it down. Nor will they make sure it works like it should.

$666 a month? what?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

$666 a month? what?

The cost of the $1.5T dollar Obamacare program.

It would cost $666/month/person for the coverage that plan offers.

Wait, you're saying you want this plan to get passed, but you don't even know specifics? Seriously?

[Azure]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news...obama.fortune/

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.


A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

Of course, how the hell can I confirm any of that, considering what the actual bill looks like.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The cost of the $1.5T dollar Obamacare program.

It would cost $666/month/person for the coverage that plan offers.

Wait, you're saying you want this plan to get passed, but you don't even know specifics? Seriously?

Keep in mind, though--that health care costs in the U.S. are stupidly high--and that's not something that can be changed just by sending the bill to a different address, which is all the Obama health plan (though since he was actually pretty minimally involved--the Pelosi health plan might be more accurate) really provides for.

At best, it's a bandaid solution to a much wider, much more profound problem with health care than the plan's proponents realize. At worst it'll be a massive boondoggle. I think the former is likelier--you think the second is more likely--but I think we both agree that the plan doesn't address the real challenges that health care in America faces.

The costs of Obama's plan are high because the costs of health care are vastly inflated by an inefficient health care industry that requires enough administrators, billing specialists and so on to fill a hollowed out volcano. Making matters worse is the fact that in deciding what procedures to do, doctors are generally only accountable to the bottom line, which leads to massive overspending that patients have very little control over.

Here's an example of a procedure that makes the system more expensive for everyone. Coronary artery stents are just one example of a procedure that is expensive, useless in most patients that receive it, and over-utilized by a factor of about 10 because everyone involved makes mountains of cash from the procedure. If you're a doctor in the U.S., which would you rather do--write a scrip for lipitor and bill your patient's insurance for 150 dollars, or get your patient under the knife and bill his insurance company for 25,000 dollars? As a result, in spite of research showing that stents are basically useless in chronic angina cases, something like 80% of patients that receive stents have chronic angina that would be correctable through diet and medication.

In Canada, stent use is much lower. But outcomes in cardiac care are better.

There are a lot of similar examples, but this one is particularly egregious because a simple regulation of this procedure could save the industry billions of dollars. It shows that right now the health care industry in the U.S. is designed to make a few people very rich--not to provide service to the people who need it.

[Azure]

I certainly realize all that.

Anyways, I have tried to read through the legislation, and my head hurts.

Do they assume we're all super-smart lawyers or something? Jesus.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I certainly realize all that.

Anyways, I have tried to read through the legislation, and my head hurts.

Do they assume we're all super-smart lawyers or something? Jesus.

Yes. Or that if you're not a super-smart lawyer you'll just close your eyes, cross your fingers and hope for the best.

The U.S. government is expert at finding complex and cumbersome solutions to complex and cumbersome problems. That's not a partisan comment, just an observation of how it has worked over the past 11 years or so.

My feeling (and--I'll be honest--hope) is that whatever system Obama signs into law will be better than what they currently have. Right now, health care is stupidly expensive and a hardship for middle class families, not to mention the uninsured.

I guess I'll settle for stupidly expensive and a hardship for the government, if that's the only other option. But I'd prefer a solution that was efficient, had reasonable costs and was fair.

After that, I would ask for an end to war. And a piece of moon cheese.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I thought this might be a good thread to post this in.

When confronted with the fact that Canadians have a higher life expectancy, Bill O'Reilly says that's to be expected because the U.S. has "10 times as many people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_246261.html

Ur.... what? I don't think I can even start to list the many levels on which he failed there.

[peter12]

This is a great website from, I believe, a government funded council on health care reform. The premise is basically that our system is broken, but can be fixed without resort to a dramatically privatized system. Some great pieces on here.

http://www.canadavalueshealth.ca/