Carson: This bill does not represent true health care reform. It is merely a series of transfer payments and a quasi-nationalization of the health insurance industry. The “any change is good argument” doesn’t hold water. Rather than ramrodding this bill down our throats congress could have waited and put together true reform. This bill will not fundamentally change the delivery and cost of health services in the US. It simply alters the structure of payments and increases the number of insured. Here are two fundamental problems that this bill doesn’t address: The US spends twice as much per capita on health care as Britain and yet doesn’t have substantially better results. This bill will not substantially lower cost per capita. A massive percentage of our health care dollars are spent during the last two weeks of life. Essentially, we are crippling our nation financially to extend the lives of people 14 days. Obama has made it clear that he won’t “pull the plug on grandma.” However, this is exactly what we need. My last comment indicates how I feel about the republican response to the health care crisis. I believe we have been failed by both parties. However, I will choose bad system+lower thaxes over bad system+higher taxes any day of the week
@joemontana, Please define “quasi-nationalization”, for that matter please define nationalization. How does nationalization and expropriation fit into this discussion? What difference do you draw between regulation and nationalization? Obviously these are two different things; an highly regulated utility is obviously not nationalized. Please explain your intellectual laziness.
Really? You want to argue semantics? Fine. I’d define “nationalization” as full governmental control and ownership of an entity. I’d define “quasi-nationalization” as excessive governmental control of an entity. Here are some elements of the plan that indicate excessive governmental control: People with pre-existing conditions who have been turned down for health insurance could sign up for a high-risk insurance pool that would be available within 90 days and remain available until 2014. Within six months, insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to children based on pre-existing medical conditions, from placing lifetime dollar limits on coverage and from rescinding coverage when a person becomes sick or disabled. The ban on exclusion based on pre-existing conditions would be extended to every one when the exchanges are operational in 2014. Premiums for older people cannot be more than three times the premium for young adults. Insurers competing in the new exchanges would be required to justify rate increases and those who raise prices excessively could be barred from the exchanges. Insurers would be required to spend more of their premium revenues — between 80 to 85 cents of every dollar — on medical claims. According to a recent Senate Commerce Committee analysis, the largest for-profit insurance companies spend about 74 cents out of every dollar on medical care in the individual market. From the Reconciliation bill Would extend the ban on lifetime limits and rescission of coverage to all existing health plans within six months. Would extend the ban on exclusion based on medical condition and annual limits to all employer-sponsored health plans by 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/19/us/politics/20100319-health-care-reconciliation.html?ref=policy#tab=9
joemontana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really? You want to argue semantics? Fine. I’d > define “nationalization” as full governmental > control and ownership of an entity. I’d define > “quasi-nationalization” as excessive governmental > control of an entity. Here are some elements of > the plan that indicate excessive governmental > control: > > People with pre-existing conditions who have been > turned down for health insurance could sign up for > a high-risk insurance pool that would be available > within 90 days and remain available until 2014. > Within six months, insurers would be prohibited > from denying coverage to children based on > pre-existing medical conditions, from placing > lifetime dollar limits on coverage and from > rescinding coverage when a person becomes sick or > disabled. The ban on exclusion based on > pre-existing conditions would be extended to every > one when the exchanges are operational in 2014. > Premiums for older people cannot be more than > three times the premium for young adults. > Insurers competing in the new exchanges would be > required to justify rate increases and those who > raise prices excessively could be barred from the > exchanges. > Insurers would be required to spend more of their > premium revenues — between 80 to 85 cents of every > dollar — on medical claims. According to a recent > Senate Commerce Committee analysis, the largest > for-profit insurance companies spend about 74 > cents out of every dollar on medical care in the > individual market. > > From the Reconciliation bill > Would extend the ban on lifetime limits and > rescission of coverage to all existing health > plans within six months. > > Would extend the ban on exclusion based on medical > condition and annual limits to all > employer-sponsored health plans by 2014. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/19/us/p > olitics/20100319-health-care-reconciliation.html?r > ef=policy#tab=9 Sound like some excellent proposals. You are against all this???
Semantics are what define a language; maybe I’m missing something. What you’ve stated above are regulatory requirements; please present an instance of “nationalization”. Nationalization would have been if a public option was in this bill. Maybe the word you want to use is increased government regulation; the definition of nationalization does not fit here.
Webster definition of nationalism a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority The entire market, price and profit will be determined by the federal government. I wouldn’t call that true nationalization but I think “quasi-nationalization” was a good term for someone typing quickly at work. I’ve wasted enough time with this. Next time, pick apart the meat of the post. I can tell you are college kid with no job experience.
joemontana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Webster definition of nationalism > a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : > to bring under the control of law or constituted > authority > > The entire market, price and profit will be > determined by the federal government. I wouldn’t > call that true nationalization but I think > “quasi-nationalization” was a good term for > someone typing quickly at work. I’ve wasted > enough time with this. Next time, pick apart the > meat of the post. > > I can tell you are college kid with no job > experience. By that logic perhaps half of the businesses in the US are “quasi-nationalized”.
@joemontana, again you have to understand the distinction here between regulation, don’t just throw around words. The meat of your statement was within the context of nationalization, my point here is that your gross generalization does not apply (no one is calling Utility companies nationalized so I’m not sure what you’re saying). Again you’re wrong about me being a college kid with no work experience(I think you meant work not job experience).
This has been one of the more interesting threads I’ve read on AnalystForum in a while. I’ve enjoyed reading a number of thought-provoking posts. Some participants I’d like to acknowledge include kkent, frisian, eureka (though I don’t personally agree with his reasons for voting “yes”, he mentions some interesting points), joemontana, and Carson. Personally, I do not support the bill for the following reasons: (1) I’m concerned that it will create significant moral hazard among people that don’t want to work or otherwise find ways to exploit the welfare system, along with a class of individuals that ordinarily have higher productivity but may choose to settle for jobs in lower income brackets so that they can benefit from the new system; (2) There are few actionable solutions for healthcare industry-wide cost containment, which I feel is as egregious a problem as having millions of Americans uninsured; (3) Physicians’ livelihood will be hurt further by declining reimbursement payments for services along with heightened need for healthcare, which basically means they will need to work more for less money. Importantly, recall that this is a trend that we’ve been seeing ever since the emergence of managed care in the 1980’s, and if you speak with any physicians that had started practicing in the 1980’s or earlier, I’m sure most of them would tell you that the field of medicine “isn’t what it used to be.” Anyway, this bill potentially creates additional disincentives to adolescents and high school students to become doctors in the future; and (4) I think the program will end up putting additional financial burden on the states themselves, given their responsibility for Medicaid programs. Moreover, there will be a class of physicians that will choose not to accept Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP at all, which will not only potentially raise private pay healthcare cost but decrease the number of available physicians for the less wealthy. In any case, I know the headline is that the bill creates insurance coverage for many people that aren’t insured at the moment. Ideologically, it’s a great idea, but from a feasibility standpoint, there are many moving parts to the system and this bill could do more harm than good for the greater economic structure. Just my two cents.
Ok, so the US pays a greater % of its GDP to health care than Canada. Big whoop, that is only looking at cost not quality. I can get heart surgery done by a state of the art heart surgeon in the US for $50,000 or I can go to Haiti and have some guy hook up jumper cables to my heart and clean it out with a tooth brush for $50. We need to keep this in mind.
Rydex: My point is that we spend way more than other counties and don’t yield significantly betetr results. That is a major problem and has not been addressed by either party. Zockesh: Fine - you win. The bill merely represents a transfer payment and increased regulation. The point of the post was to say that he bill didn’t represent health reform. Damn
Why don’t we just quasi-nationalize MacDonald’s and slap restrictions on caloric intake. That will surely banish our egregious healthcare system to the hinterland.
I do not support it.
We need a Vegan president
No, it makes the goverment bigger and you know what that means. I can’t believe I thought Bush was the biggest idiot – Obama with his team Pelosi and B Frank easily take the honor. I cannot wait for November, if they will have election. The way it’s going it could be comunism by the end of May.
Japan (#2 economy in the world) has the longest healthy life expectancy on Earth and spends half (in percent of GDP) as much on health care as the United States. Japan has universal health care system. Everyone in Japan is required to get a health insurance policy, either at work or through a community-based insurer. The government picks up the tab for those who are too poor. It’s a model of social insurance that is used in many wealthy countries. But it’s definitely not “socialized medicine.” Eighty percent of Japan’s hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor’s office is a private business. The Japanese go to the doctor about three times as often as Americans. Because there are no gatekeepers, they can see any specialist they want. Japanese patients also stay in the hospital much longer than Americans, on average. They love technology such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); they have nearly twice as many scans per capita as Americans do. The Japanese Health Ministry tightly controls the price of health care down to the smallest detail. Every two years, the health care industry and the health ministry negotiate a fixed price for every procedure and every drug. That helps keep premiums to around $280 a month for the average Japanese family, and Japan’s employers pick up at least half of that. If you lose your job, you keep your health insurance. Japanese insurers are a lot more accommodating than their American counterparts. For one thing, they can’t deny a claim. And they have to cover everybody. Even an applicant with heart disease can’t be turned down, that is forbidden. Nor do health care plans covering basic health care for workers and their families make a profit. Anything left over is carried over to the next year. If the carryover was big, then the premium rate would go down. No one in Japan goes broke because of medical expenses. Personal bankruptcy due to medical expenses is unheard of in Japan
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Japan (#2 economy in the world) has the longest > healthy life expectancy on Earth and spends half > (in percent of GDP) as much on health care as the > United States. Japan has universal health care > system. Everyone in Japan is required to get a > health insurance policy, either at work or through > a community-based insurer. The government picks up > the tab for those who are too poor. It’s a model > of social insurance that is used in many wealthy > countries. But it’s definitely not “socialized > medicine.” Eighty percent of Japan’s hospitals are > privately owned — more than in the United States — > and almost every doctor’s office is a private > business. The Japanese go to the doctor about > three times as often as Americans. Because there > are no gatekeepers, they can see any specialist > they want. Japanese patients also stay in the > hospital much longer than Americans, on average. > They love technology such as magnetic resonance > imaging (MRI); they have nearly twice as many > scans per capita as Americans do. The Japanese > Health Ministry tightly controls the price of > health care down to the smallest detail. Every two > years, the health care industry and the health > ministry negotiate a fixed price for every > procedure and every drug. That helps keep premiums > to around $280 a month for the average Japanese > family, and Japan’s employers pick up at least > half of that. > If you lose your job, you keep your health > insurance. > Japanese insurers are a lot more accommodating > than their American counterparts. For one thing, > they can’t deny a claim. And they have to cover > everybody. Even an applicant with heart disease > can’t be turned down, that is forbidden. Nor do > health care plans covering basic health care for > workers and their families make a profit. Anything > left over is carried over to the next year. If the > carryover was big, then the premium rate would go > down. > No one in Japan goes broke because of medical > expenses. > Personal bankruptcy due to medical expenses is > unheard of in Japan So the bill just passed is a photocopy of the Japanese legislation that produced their healthcare Utopia, right? Maybe not such a Utopia afterall. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601630_pf.html
I do not support it. - 10th amendment: federal gov’t overstepping its power - liberty: coercion of the state on the individual (forced to buy health insurance)
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not support it. > > - 10th amendment: federal gov’t overstepping its > power > - liberty: coercion of the state on the > individual (forced to buy health insurance) I guess your two points apply to paying federal taxes as well. Oh btw if you own a car are you not legally forced to have car insurance? Is that not coercion of the state on the > individual (forced to buy car insurance)? How do you justify that?
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not support it. > > - 10th amendment: federal gov’t overstepping its > power > - liberty: coercion of the state on the > individual (forced to buy health insurance) After taking a break to educate yourself on the bill you come up with this?