Obama address to Congress

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree with most of your post about what is being proposed--but this statement about costs is simply wrong. The U.S. system, as it is right now--is far more expensive than the Canadian system, costing 16% of GDP as opposed to around 8.

In fact, the U.S. spends MORE per capita on Medicare and Medicaid--two non-universal government health care insurance programs ("public options", for those who are paying attention) than Canada does on its entire health care system from top to bottom.

The notion that a publically funded system is more expensive than the hybrid system that the U.S. currently has is simply nonsense. In fact, the most potent argument for universal health care is this: it's cheaper.

A rationed service is often cheaper. Let's say Canada were to provide the same level of access to "healthcare" services as is available in the US through our public model. I'd be very curious to see what the costs of the Canadian system would be then.

For those in the US that got prompt treatment and regained their health albeit with a significant bill, better in the red than dead. Waiting lists can kill you, bills only hurt your pocketbook (and sometimes alot.)

[Cactus Jack]

This ordeal in the US is stupid, and people think our minority government is a gong show. This showdown in the US is even worse. If they don't want a public option, who cares? As a Canadian, I have no vested interest. If they want to continue with a system that bankrupts people by the millions, doesn't provide insurance for millions and whose quality is far below that of many developing countries, I say let them have what they want.

It's just unfortunate that Obama is right and that the word tax in the US is the equivalent of a 4 letter word. Balooning medical program costs with federal debt will crush the US in a few years, thus it's better to pay a trillion now to fix it than 100 trillion later. Oh, well.

[MarchHare]

But, you have to realize that you can't simply make those costs go away. Adding the public option only ensures that you end up paying more taxes.

Sure taxes will have to go up to pay for universal public healthcare, but what system will result in more money in the pockets of average Americans? In this very thread, we have a healthy, non-smoker saying he pays $300/mo for insurance. Public healthcare would eliminate that expense, but at the trade-off of higher taxes. Are you saying his taxes would increase by more than $300/mo? I suspect they wouldn't, and he'd be better off financially with higher taxes but no health insurance bill to pay.

At the end of the day, Americans don't care if their money goes to the government or a private health insurance company -- either way, it's money out of their pocket. Private health insurance, essentially a mandatory expense, is really no different than paying taxes anyway, except a portion of what you pay is siphoned off for shareholder profit.

Because it won't make the insane overhead costs go away. If anything they'll get worse.

Single-payer healthcare has been shown time and again to be more cost-efficient than the US system specifically because administration and overhead costs are significantly reduced.

[Dion]

Stephen Woolf fears he’s had a recurrence of the head and neck cancer diagnosed six years ago, but he says he can’t afford to see a doctor.

“I’m a 52-year-old guy with a job, no dependents but no insurance” through the family-owned company he works for, he said Wednesday, Sept. 2. “If I go to a doctor, they’ll send me to a specialist, and it’s $250 just to walk through their door.”

Tests will cost thousands of dollars, he said.

“To sum up, I’m just sitting around waiting to die because I don’t have a pocket full of money,” he said.

James Prickett, 57, of Waynesville is battling prostate cancer. When his insurance company raised his premiums in May to $1,325 a month, the self-employed barber said he couldn’t switch insurers because of his pre-existing condition.

Instead, he bought a lower cost plan from the same insurer, reducing his premium to $959 a month but raising his deductible to $5,000 and eliminating his coverage for doctor visits altogether.

As a result, Prickett said he is no longer seeing a physician for routine treatments to unblock his bladder. He has even catheterized himself to relieve his pain.

Seeing a doctor “just takes money from everything else you need,” he said.

Judy Davis, a cancer survivor and local realtor feeling the effects of a slow market, has had to discontinue her medications for psoriasis and depression until her insurance deductible is met.

“It would be far better to see my doctor and be on medication, but you have to eat and pay the bills,” she said.

Nearly 90 percent of the 505 family doctors responding to a national survey by the American Association of Family Physicians reported their “patients have expressed concerns recently over their ability to pay for their health care needs,” the poll found.

More than half of the respondents (58 percent) said they had “seen an increase in appointment cancellations.”

Three in five physicans (60 percent) reported they had “seen more health problems caused by their patients forgoing needed preventive care.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...ts-287503.html

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

At the end of the day, Americans don't care if their money goes to the government or a private health insurance company -- either way, it's money out of their pocket. Private health insurance, essentially a mandatory expense, is really no different than paying taxes anyway, except a portion of what you pay is siphoned off for shareholder profit.



Single-payer healthcare has been shown time and again to be more cost-efficient than the US system specifically because administration and overhead costs are significantly reduced.

Firstly, I think Americans care on how they spend their money. And, no, private health insurance is not essentially mandatory. Some people may feel that way while others may not. Therefore do they choose to buy no, limited or full-blown-cover-everything insurance? Depends on a myriad of factors (risk tolerance, overall health, income, employer coverage, etc.) Everyone must pay their taxes...period...no opt-in or opt-out. Taxes don't go away and, more often than not, increase (the Canadian GST being a notable exception.) That's a huge red flag for alot of people.

Secondly, it has also been shown time and again that governmental service organizations are less cost-efficient specifically because beurocracy, adminstration and overhead costs are significantly bloated.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sure taxes will have to go up to pay for universal public healthcare, but what system will result in more money in the pockets of average Americans? In this very thread, we have a healthy, non-smoker saying he pays $300/mo for insurance. Public healthcare would eliminate that expense, but at the trade-off of higher taxes.

If people would actually bother to run the numbers on Obama's plan, you'd notice that the cost comes out to $666/person per month.

How is that lowering the cost?

I don't care if you pay for it through taxes either. It still costs money. Money the US doesn't have.

And for the people asking why the Canadian system couldn't work in the US. Maybe it could, if the US Federal Government would be willing to allow the states to control their health care.

But they're not, and as a result Obamacare is going to turn into a gongshow of epic proportions.

Don't believe me? Look at every other social program being run by the Federal Government right now. Literally all of them operate at a loss. And the quality of care they provide? Well, as IFF put it, people, especially the middle class in the US are paying a LOT of taxes and receiving next to no quality care at all.

[Dion]

I’ve been treated in the American system and have lived with universal care in Canada. Guess which one is freer — and more humane.

As luck would have it, I had an attack of appendicitis while I was alone on the fourth-floor of an apartment building. The issue I had to clear on the phone with the insurance company was whether I was allowed to call an ambulance, given that I was in too much pain to walk. That conversation, in turn, evolved into a debate about whether I was experiencing a pre-existing condition, which was difficult for me to articulate or even ponder. (Projectile vomiting will do that.)

Eventually, it was deemed permissible. Hurrah. Whereupon the only lasting harm done was my ongoing fear that I might ever get sick again on a private insurance company's dime. To me, it was a novelty and a horror to have to justify my experience of suffering to a stranger who seemed more concerned about the company's bottom line than my pain.

Why hadn't that ever happened to me in Toronto? Because our government funds health care, but doesn't micromanage it. There isn't the case-by-case nickel-and-diming that many American patients experience with HMOs. All doctors and specialists are available to us. When my daughter needed a hernia operation, our pediatrician felt that one particular Toronto hospital was best for that procedure — and off we went.

The point is not that the Canadian system is superior, per se, but that in many ways it feels freer, and more humane. Canadians believe that no individual's frailty should be profited from unless that individual chooses to allow someone to profit. That is a core belief.

But the bedrock upon which the system continues to grow is the belief that no citizen should ever have to choose between health care and rent, or between her care and that of her children.

As long as Americans continue to lack consensus at this bedrock level, there will be no clarity to the objectives for reform. Rumors, slanders and tangential, confusing arguments about scary bureaucrats and oppressed foreigners pining for Dr. House will be the death of the debate.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...alth-care.html

[Pastiche]

Secondly, it has also been shown time and again that governmental service organizations are less cost-efficient specifically because beurocracy, adminstration and overhead costs are significantly bloated.

While that may be true. In the health care debate it's disingenuous. A government run single payer system would be much cheaper. Shared-risk means drastically reduced overhead.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Secondly, it has also been shown time and again that governmental service organizations are less cost-efficient specifically because beurocracy, adminstration and overhead costs are significantly bloated.

Are you basing that argument on research and facts or just your own conjecture? Can you support your claim by linking studies comparing the cost efficiency of US-style private insurance vs. socialized single-payer systems?

You can start with this page (which has links to dozens of national and state-level studies analyzing the cost of a single-payer system), but you won't find the outcome you're expecting.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

While that may be true. In the health care debate it's disingenuous. A government run single payer system would be much cheaper. Shared-risk means drastically reduced overhead.

Yeah, like here in Alberta where as a province of 3.6 million people we're running a $1.1 billion dollar health care deficit.

Sure is cost effective.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, like here in Alberta where as a province of 3.6 million people we're running a $1.1 billion dollar health care deficit.

Sure is cost effective.

How much is our police force and fire protection deficit?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you basing that argument on research and facts or just your own conjecture? Can you support your claim by linking studies comparing the cost efficiency of US-style private insurance vs. socialized single-payer systems?

You can start with this page (which has links to dozens of national and state-level studies analyzing the cost of a single-payer system), but you won't find the outcome you're expecting.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php

Thanks for the link. The word "facts" in the URL is misleading though. The entire first page (I didn't go beyond as I felt they'd put the "big" stories first) are single-payer-system proposals which contain their own conjecture. They assert that in the first year or two costs will increase, but then they'll drop if A, B, C, or D come true. One even mentioned a CAP!!

Anyway, I'll take your advice and do a little research later as I'm certainly not convinced my conjecture is altogether inaccurate based on that sample set.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, like here in Alberta where as a province of 3.6 million people we're running a $1.1 billion dollar health care deficit.

Sure is cost effective.

Yeah and compare that to a countries without a single payer system. Notably the U.S. where total health care expenditures per capita are almost double Canada.

Seriously, read a freaking book on the subject before you start piping out the bilge.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How much is our police force and fire protection deficit?

Who was talking about our police force of fire protection?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Yeah and compare that to a countries without a single payer system. Notably the U.S. where total health care expenditures per capita are almost double Canada.

Seriously, read a freaking book on the subject before you start piping out the bilge.

I'm not the one claiming that a single-payer system will magically reduce costs. You are.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

Maybe you could start by looking at the bulging costs of Social Security and Medicare in the US. That should give you a good start of how inefficient the government is when it comes to managing social programs.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Who was talking about our police force of fire protection?

Well, you seem to think it's problematic that healthcare in Alberta costs $1.1B. Do you also have a problem with police and fire protection costing the taxpayers money?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Well, you seem to think it's problematic that healthcare in Alberta costs $1.1B. Do you also have a problem with police and fire protection costing the taxpayers money?

Health care in Alberta costs a hell of a lot more than $1.1B. That is the current DEFICIT.

And yes, I have a problem with any government program running a deficit.

I see we're going back to the old 'you just hate government spending' argument.

An argument we've had about 3 million times before. Seems like you can't come up with anything better to bring up when I talk about bloated government spending.

[Pastiche]

I'm not the one claiming that a single-payer system will magically reduce costs. You are.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

Show me this evidence.

[MarchHare]

I'm not the one claiming that a single-payer system will magically reduce costs. You are.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

Actually, there's piles of evidence (some already linked in this thread) that shows that single-payer systems are significantly more cost-efficient. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, you're actually expecting the US Federal Government to do something right for a change.

How many social programs does it have to screw up before people start realizing that a huge, bloated government does not work?

nm, fata