BadgerCare Plus Waiting List
Waiting lists and lines for government-run health care? Preposterous! Absurd! Oh wait...
About 7,000 people are on a waiting list for the state’s health-care program for childless adults, and that list could grow to 20,000 or more by March.
[...]
The program extends the BadgerCare Plus program to adults who don’t have children. Before this year, the health plan was available only to children and their parents.
The state is designing a limited-benefit insurance program for people on the waiting list. That plan would cost people $100 to $130 a month, according to initial estimates; no tax money would be used to fund it.
The final cost hasn’t been set because the level of coverage hasn’t been decided.
Legislators would have to change the law to create the insurance program for people on the waiting list. The earliest it would be available would be March, state Medicaid Director Jason Helgerson told the Assembly and Senate health committees Tuesday.
Comparing a wait for coverage to a wait for care is apples and oranges. Besides, if the program were sum-sufficient, like most entitlement programs, there wouldn’t be a wait. We’d just run a deficit and find the money elsewhere.
Perhaps you should thank Gov. Doyle for throwing the brakes on enrollment instead.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 17, 2009 at 1745 hrs
Yeah, the waiting period for private insurance is in the tens of millions nationwide. Yay for the private sector.
Posted by scott on November 17, 2009 at 2244 hrs
Scott,
Cite your numbers, jackass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0921 hrs
Is this the rationing we have been discussing? Not enough money to provide care for those who have signed up… Hmm, is that something we should expect when the program has somewhere between 50-150 million people waiting for coverage?
Recess supervisor, that is the point. The government’s argument now is that those who don’t have access to health insurance, by definition, don’t have access to healthcare… WHICH IS PATENTLY UNTRUE. Now you have just admitted it.
Scott. When I signed up for my insurance late last year, I signed the paperwork and received my insurance cards within a week… Wow, some wait. When I googled “wait list for private health insurance” the only thing that came up were stories from the UK, and Canada where private policies are heavily regulated, and there are more and more people every year trying to get out of the government plans…
http://www.privatehealthadvice.co.uk/private-health-waiting-lists.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0922 hrs
Don’t bother providing links to websites to Scott. He’ll just tell you the author or owner of the site is a rightwing kook bought and paid for by ‘Big Insurance’ and that he’s got the wikipedia page to prove it ... and then never actully respond to the substanitive argument made therein, no matter how well cited it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1220 hrs
I’m not sure I understand your point, Doug. I especially love when people try to play gotcha at the end of their convoluted statements but I never once talked about access to health care.
Public health care systems are typically sum sufficient. Criteria may exist to determine priority for certain procedures. Those criteria may exist in part to contain costs, but honestly that’s no different than what private insurers do. Private insurers routinely refuse to pay for treatments that they consider medically unnecessary. This rationing boogeyman that some people invoke exists in both systems. They just use different criteria.
So of course you wouldn’t expect it, Doug. What Doyle has done is highly unusual, an exception to a near-universal rule. In a public system, nobody waits to be covered. People are covered automatically. And how you make that system work financially is discussed apart from that.
Also, private insurance is routinely available in many countries with public care. That’s hardly an argument against public care, nor is it necessarily evidence that people are trying to “get out of” government plans. Private care simply affords individuals another option should they need it or want it. As someone who has lived in and been insured in a country with a hybrid system, there were times when I saw my private physician and there were times when I saw my public doctor. For me, it was largely driven by the fact that my private physician spoke English and my public doctor did not. In some instances (but not all), private insurance affords people faster treatment or more extensive coverage. But again, that’s not evidence of failure in a public system, but simply that a public system has restraints, just as private systems do.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 18, 2009 at 1236 hrs
Don’t bother providing links to websites to Scott. He’ll just tell you the author or owner of the site is a rightwing kook bought and paid for by ‘Big Insurance’ and that he’s got the wikipedia page to prove it
I tend to do that only when the author or owner of the site is a rightwing kook bought and paid for by “Big Insurance” and I’ve got the Wikipedia article to prove it.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1311 hrs
Yeah, the waiting period for private insurance is in the tens of millions nationwide. Yay for the private sector.
Liar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1319 hrs
You’re right. If you can’t get or can’t afford private health insurance they don’t even have a waiting list. You’re either going to qualify for government insurance or get none at all.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1333 hrs
You’re right. If you can’t get or can’t afford private health insurance they don’t even have a waiting list. You’re either going to qualify for government insurance or get none at all.
Liar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1335 hrs
You’re right. If you can’t get or can’t afford private health insurance they don’t even have a waiting list. You’re either going to qualify for government insurance or get none at all.
Strawman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1337 hrs
True.
If we’re outraged at a government health insurance program failing to serve people adequately why are we not positively enraged at the “service” working Americans are getting from the private insurance industry? It makes no sense whatsoever. That’s not a straw man argument. It’s a friggin’ elephant in the living room of your complaints.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1341 hrs
If we’re outraged at a government health insurance program failing to serve people adequately why are we not positively enraged at the “service” working Americans are getting from the private insurance industry?
strawman.
My private health insurance is just fine, thank you very much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1343 hrs
I too am perfectly happy with my insurance. Seeing the number of Canadians and Britt’s fighting to get into the government restricted private insurance market is enough to convince me that their system is not the one I want.
True.
If we’re outraged at a government health insurance program failing to serve people adequately why are we not positively enraged at the “service” working Americans are getting from the private insurance industry? It makes no sense whatsoever. That’s not a straw man argument. It’s a friggin’ elephant in the living room of your complaints.
Because a company that provides poor service will be forced out of business by the free market. A government that provides poor service will raise taxes and make excuses. I receive excellent service from the private sector insurance companies, and so did my father while he was dying of colon cancer last year… More than $250,000 in total medical claims, NONE DENIED. The only elephant that I want out of my living room is the government.
I’m not sure I understand your point, Doug. I especially love when people try to play gotcha at the end of their convoluted statements but I never once talked about access to health care.
Nothing convoluted about it, try re-reading it slower this time. Based upon your screen name (which you choose to remain conveniently anonymous) it seems to me you are a teacher, are the teachers PRIVATE SECTOR benefits not protected in the current legislation? Hmmm.
Also, private insurance is routinely available in many countries with public care. That’s hardly an argument against public care, nor is it necessarily evidence that people are trying to “get out of” government plans.
Did you look at either of the links I provided? It is extremely difficult to get private health insurance in the UK and Canada because of the onerous government restrictions on enrollment levels.
The government (the rule maker, by default) cannot be a player in the insurance game, and then call it fair. That would be like letting Mike McCarthy be the commissioner of the NFL and allowing him to coach the Packers, he would be able to levy fines and restrictions on all the other teams so that his would always win. Don’t even try to tell me that the United States government will not do the same thing in regards to the public option. This is the baby of the government class, and just as is the case with anything else, they will justify any means to meet their ends.
Too convoluted for you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1413 hrs
Recess Supervisor, I suppose you would also argue that it is not necessarily evident that anyone is trying to get out of the public education system? Many people would rather send their children to a private school but cannot necessarily afford to, especially when they receive a huge property tax bill for their little piece of heaven that is going to educate everyone else’s children.
Just because people aren’t trying does not necessarily mean that they want what they have. Many times the taxation required to run these systems prices people out of private plans. Right now there are people who cannot afford health insurance because of outlandish mandatory minimum coverages required by the government.
It is just plain sad that The United States of America has come to the point where so many (maybe a majority) think that it is the responsibility of everyone else, under the heavy thumb of government, to take care of their every need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Seeing the number of Canadians and Britt’s fighting to get into the government restricted private insurance market is enough to convince me that their system is not the one I want.
You are deeply mistaken about the level of dissatisfaction with these systems. I doubt you could produce one single poll that indicates the people of these countries want to give their systems up. Last time I read about the NHS I think it had upward of an 80% approval rating. I’m sure Canadians aren’t clamoring for a US-style system, either. Whatever problems they do have, more than 80% of them favor public solutions to fixing them as opposed to private ones.
I would trade our health care problems for the British and Canadian ones combined. In a heartbeat. The belief that their problems are in some meaningful way worse than ours is simply mistaken.
a company that provides poor service will be forced out of business by the free market.
Clearly that’s not happening. Besides, a free market determines who gets what and what is produced through supply and demand—but it doesn’t guarantee that everyone ends up with a widget. And for some very practical and humanitarian reasons, we do want everyone to have comprehensive heath insurance.
The government (the rule maker, by default) cannot be a player in the insurance game, and then call it fair.
Why are you so concerned about what’s fair for insurance companies? Where is your concern for what is fair and just for people? The people who pay double what citizens of other countries pay for health care. The people who can’t get private insurance and who don’t qualify for government insurance. The people who, because of it’s incredible price tag, choose to gamble with their health by not carrying insurance. The people who would like to start a business but can’t because they’d lose their group coverage and could never afford to get it individually. All this and your concern is for what’s fair for insurance companies? Why?
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1456 hrs
there are people who cannot afford health insurance because of outlandish mandatory minimum coverages required by the government.
Really? You believe the problem with insurance prices has to do with “outlandish” coverage requirements put on them by the state? I’d like to know what coverage you’re talking about. And I’d like to know what percentage of our health insurance bill goes to pay for these supposedly unnecessary and outlandish coverages. Will it explain why my insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years?
Because I think it has more to do with this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html
Do you suppose that those other countries in the graphs have fewer of those outlandish coverage requirements? Is that the reason they pay so much less than we do? No, wait—it’s because they’re denying old people heart surgeries or disabled children treatment. Right? It’s those death panels hard at work in Canada, France, Germany, UK, Span and the Netherlands.
I think it’s time for us to tell doctors, hospitals and drug companies the we’re not going to pay those kind of prices anymore. The way Medicare does for its recipients. (Notice how much better on the graph they are than we lucky, lucky privately insured?) Give me a public option with millions of people as negotiating power.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1654 hrs
You are deeply mistaken about the level of dissatisfaction with these systems.
Not true.
The belief that their problems are in some meaningful way worse than ours is simply mistaken.Not true.
a company that provides poor service will be forced out of business by the free market.Clearly that’s not happening
Not true.
people who pay double what citizens of other countries pay for health care.
Not true.
The people who would like to start a business but can’t because they’d lose their group coverage and could never afford to get it individually.
Once again, not true.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1758 hrs
Your opinion on those points is made clear by those two words, but they do little in the way of conveying why—let alone building a convincing case for your view. Want to give us a little more? Pick one or two and let’s have it. How about the “pay double” thing? Want to go a round or two on that?
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1847 hrs
Scott,
Can you find a study of private industry insurance (i.e. those not sucking off the TEAT of gov’t) costs to give credibility to your opinion?
Posted by Smeety on November 18, 2009 at 1935 hrs
What are we talking about? The pay double thing? Give me more than one sentence, man. Presuming that’s what you mean, there’s these data which show how doctors, hospitals and drug makers are charging us a whole lot more than the rest of the world.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html
And the fact that we Americans pay more for health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP is widely known.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 1959 hrs
They are charging us more because of how much the government run systems in other countries (and here) are lowballing them for their products. The United States is the only reason they turn a profit…. If you would like for the progress of medical technology to stagnate, then by all means continue spewing this drivel. For your sake, I hope it doesn’t pass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2037 hrs
Scott, I am still waiting for you to cite the numbers from your first post. Please.
I hope for the sake of your credibility that you were not citing the number of seniors on the list for medicare advantage…...
Just want to repost this for you libs, because I’d love to hear you refute it.
quoting me:
The government (the rule maker, by default) cannot be a player in the insurance game, and then call it fair. That would be like letting Mike McCarthy be the commissioner of the NFL and allowing him to coach the Packers, he would be able to levy fines and restrictions on all the other teams so that his would always win. Don’t even try to tell me that the United States government will not do the same thing in regards to the public option. This is the baby of the government class, and just as is the case with anything else, they will justify any means to meet their ends.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2041 hrs
@Doug: Sorry about your father. However, your father is completely anecdotal. Citing your father doesn’t prove anything. Neither does pointing to two systems in Canada and England that you believe supports your argument, while failing to accept that getting private coverage in countless other countries is nearly effortless (e.g. Norway, Sweden, France, Spain, Germany, I could go on).
If you don’t think insurers deny procedures and that those denials kill people, Google the story of Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan, whose daughter Nataline died in 2007, in large part because CIGNA refused to cover her liver transplant because they claimed it was too experimental. Hmmm… a body that provides insurance decides to deny treatment, and the denial kills someone. Look everyone, it’s a private sector death panel! I thought those only existed in the public sector!
I’m not going to sit here and argue anecdotally with you, though. I’m simply pointing out that just because it didn’t happen to your dad doesn’t mean it never happens.
Most all health care delivery systems in the world operate as a public/private hybrid, even ours here in the United States. Set up a health care system however you want and there will be benefits and drawbacks.
My only point here was, and remains, that in a public system, people aren’t excluded from coverage or put on a waiting list for participation in a national health system. Therefore, for an individual to extrapolate that what Governor Doyle has done with one narrowly targeted program and use it to surmise that people will be waiting for health care is missing the point. And it wasn’t you that made the assertion, but our host.
Finally, there’s really no need to be a patronizing jackass. I can read just fine, thanks - at least well enough to land in the 98th percentile on the LSAT. It’s a good thing for me those scantron machines at the Law School Admission Council could figure out all those markings I made in oversized crayon while drooling on my paper!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 18, 2009 at 2044 hrs
I see. So basically the United States—by virtue of suffering a system whereby tens of millions have no health insurance and for which we’re paying 16% of GDP and climbing—are singlehandedly funding medical research around the globe. Without which, the world would be plunged into the stone age. Or something.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that the government is one of the largest funding sources for medical research in the country…
the United States is the only reason they turn a profit
Wait, doctors don’t make a profit in the UK or Canada or Spain? Are they all on welfare or something?
And hospitals in the Netherlands lose money but make up their losses over here? I did not know that!
Seriously, do you have any actual data that shows drug makers, physicians and hospitals don’t make money anywhere else but here?
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 2050 hrs
I hope for the sake of your credibility that you were not citing the number of seniors on the list for medicare advantage
I was making a somewhat oblique reference to the number of people in the US who cannot afford or flat out cannot get private insurance. There isn’t even a waiting list—they’re just screwed. Unless they get poor enough or old enough to get Medicare or Medicaid.
The government (the rule maker, by default) cannot be a player in the insurance game, and then call it fair.
And I ask in comment 16: why are you so concerned with what’s fair for insurance companies when so many millions of Americans have no heath insurance at all, and the rest of us pay too much for our care? It’s disturbing to see so clearly where your priorities and your loyalties lie: Big businesses over sick Americans.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 2102 hrs
And I ask in comment 16: why are you so concerned with what’s fair for insurance companies when so many millions of Americans have no heath insurance at all, and the rest of us pay too much for our care? It’s disturbing to see so clearly where your priorities and your loyalties lie: Big businesses over sick Americans.
Because it is that simple, right. In your simple world, it is that easy…
First of all, fair is fair. You cannot argue to me that it is unfair that “so many Americans can’t get insurance” (A LIE), and on the other hand tell me that caring about fairness in regards to business is too much to expect.
I am not suffering under the current system, I never have. In my early twenties i worked crappy jobs and had no insurance. The only visit I had to a doctor was to the emergency room for stitches, and I paid for it out of pocket (Hey, imagine that) to the tune of $2500+. I made that choice, to not carry insurance, and it is a choice that millions of Americans make at every enrollment period. Sometimes people fall through the cracks and bad things happen, and guess what it is going to happen with government care as well (and according to the stories from Northern Europe and Canada, it will happen just as if not more often).
My priorities lie in resisting government control and promoting liberty in a nation that was founded on that concept. I’m sorry if on principle I find the idea of a government taking 35-50+% of what I earn to provide me with everything they think I should have appalling. The vast majority of the people without health insurance do not have it because they choose not to have it, or do not take the time to figure out that they could… Catastrophic coverage is CHEAP, and almost anything else COULD be self insured if anyone in this country had any discipline with their money (remember HSA’s, the things Obama and Pelosi are trying to get rid of in the House bill), emergency care will be provided regardless of ability to pay, and there is almost assuredly a government program for anyone who genuinely cannot afford at least a modicum of insurance.
Your anti business mindset is YOUR problem. I like business, it provides jobs (and insurance), it provides prosperity, and services that I enjoy. I despise government, it leaches money out of the private sector to create nothing. It is constantly dishonest, whether you are talking about wars, healthcare, or (especially it seems) stimulus. It takes what I produce to give it to people who refuse to work for a living. It is woefully inefficient, and the rules are rules mindset is enough to make me want to start my hair on fire.
I’m sorry that your entitlement mindset has robbed you of the ability to see the value of liberty, but if you hate this country so much, why don’t you move to one that already has all of these programs you so desperately want for yourself? oh, wait, thats right…. They control their borders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2129 hrs
And the fact that we Americans pay more for health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP is widely known.
I don’t know, call me crazy, but I guess I’m glad we pay double what is paid per capita by Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, Korea, Portugal, & Poland…
Posted by Smeety on November 18, 2009 at 2131 hrs
Wait, doctors don’t make a profit in the UK or Canada or Spain? Are they all on welfare or something?
And hospitals in the Netherlands lose money but make up their losses over here? I did not know that!
Seriously, do you have any actual data that shows drug makers, physicians and hospitals don’t make money anywhere else but here?
Yes, Scott just as there is a reimbursement gap in this country between what medicare/medicaid will pay (less) and what private insurers have to pay (more) for procedures. The government systems in other countries lowball the dollar amount that they will pay for drugs, equipment and procedures. This causes drug and equipment companies to raise prices for the one area they can… THE PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET in the United States. This is one of the key reasons that healthcare is so expensive in this country. Because those evil big business HAVE to make a profit to continue to exist. Do the research, I don’t have time to do it for you this time…
If the public plan in this country takes effect and begins squeezing downward reimbursement rates, tell me please, how would this not effect production and creation of new drugs, and medical equipment? Do you also support nationalizing Pfizer and GE Medical et al. to continue production of unprofitable products, like we have done with GM?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2139 hrs
You cannot argue to me that it is unfair that “so many Americans can’t get insurance” (A LIE), and on the other hand tell me that caring about fairness in regards to business is too much to expect.
Yes. Yes, I can tell you that. I’m telling you it quite plainly: I am much more concerned with what is fair for Americans in need of health care than I am with what makes the private insurance industry happy. Write it down so it ceases to be a point of questioning. You: insurance industry. Me: American citizens.
My priorities lie in resisting government control and promoting liberty in a nation that was founded on that concept.
What you mean is that your priority is in your anti-government ideology: The government can never solve a problem, only market forces can. Well, listen. 1980 called and they want their BS political philosophy back.
I like business
Me, too. Free enterprise is the only thing I know that can generate wealth so reliably. I just prefer that it operate within the bounds set by the people such that they are free to pursue profit only in ways that benefit the public good. (You can’t dump your waste in the river, cut down every tree in the state, etc.) And there are some things that private interest will never do in a way that satisfies our needs. I guess you agree. It’s just that I think there’s a couple more things on that list than you do.
I despise government
And I think that’s a pretty extreme position. Call me crazy.
if you hate this country so much, why don’t you move to one that already has all of these programs you so desperately want for yourself?
On the contrary, I could move to one of them quite easily. But this is my home, and contrary to your asinine statements, I happen to like it. let me turn the question around on you. When we pass this health care bill, why don’t you move to someplace where the government takes a more hands-off approach to it? Or maybe you wouldn’t like living in the third world. Seriously, where would you go? What place on earth can you point to that is more to your liking healthcare wise?
I don’t know, call me crazy, but I guess I’m glad we pay double what is paid per capita by Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, Korea, Portugal, & Poland
What about France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands.. are you equally glad about those?
Do the research, I don’t have time to do it for you this time
Baloney. What you mean is you think it’s true, but you don’t really know. I’m sorry, no. I don’t buy the idea that the entire global health care industry is being run on the backs of Americans who, were they to protest paying 16% of GDP for it, the entire world would suffer big setbacks in medical advancement. I think it’s entirely BS.
And, really, doctors, too? Heart surgeons in the UK are only making money because doctors here in the US are getting paid more? Explain to me how that would work, even in your imagination.
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 2206 hrs
What about France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands.. are you equally glad about those?
Absolutely. Yes.
Perspective ... My wife’s father had open heart surgery in February. If you’ve ever seen someone go through this, it’s hard to disagree with the compensation of a cardiologist. My father spent three weeks in the hospital in March with a strep infection that almost killed him, literally. A week in ICU. Primary doctor, pulmonary doc, anesthesiologist, plus one more whom I don’t remember his specialty, but he scraped away the strep against his lungs through an incision the size of a dime. Worth every penny. Wouldn’t have it any other way. Period.
Posted by Smeety on November 18, 2009 at 2213 hrs
I don’t think it’s necessary for someone to make half a million dollars a year to be excellent and dedicated. In the UK they make a measly $325k! It’s a wonder these brits survive!
Posted by scott on November 18, 2009 at 2220 hrs
I don’t think it’s necessary for someone to make half a million dollars a year to be excellent and dedicated….
That is not for you, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama to decide…
Posted by Smeety on November 18, 2009 at 2223 hrs
You: insurance industry. Me: American citizens.
Same thing. The insurance industry is made up of plain ‘ol American citizens. Just because you are not fortunate enough to be the CEO of a major insurer does not give you the right to punish them out of your jealousy…
What you mean is that your priority is in your anti-government ideology: The government can never solve a problem, only market forces can. Well, listen. 1980 called and they want their BS political philosophy back.
Really? The 80’s set the stage for the growth that occurred in this country between 1984 and 1995…. But hey, I guess ignoring the facts suits you, so I will continue to allow you to do so.
I despise government
And I think that’s a pretty extreme position. Call me crazy.
You’re crazy. The government has done NOTHING as well as it can be done by the private sector. From county workers building roads, to health insurance, to retirement planning, to cleaning courthouses, to providing security, to…... you name it.
When we pass this health care bill, why don’t you move to someplace where the government takes a more hands-off approach to it? Or maybe you wouldn’t like living in the third world. Seriously, where would you go? What place on earth can you point to that is more to your liking healthcare wise?
Thats the point… When we pass this healthcare bill we will have headed down a road that can never be turned back from.
BTW, I hear Mexico is pretty nice this time of year, and their gun laws are pretty lax too.
Seriously though, I will move to wherever the doctors retire to.
What about France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands.. are you equally glad about those?
Yes. I am. Whether or not I have health coverage is my business and mine alone. The fact that the healthcare bills of indigents now fall upon the taxpayers, is the fault of government.
Baloney. What you mean is you think it’s true, but you don’t really know. I’m sorry, no. I don’t buy the idea that the entire global health care industry is being run on the backs of Americans who, were they to protest paying 16% of GDP for it, the entire world would suffer big setbacks in medical advancement. I think it’s entirely BS.
No, not baloney. It is basic economics. There are other factors as to why US healthcare is so expensive, like defensive treatment (tort laws) and the fact that EVERY healthcare facility has to have the most expensive equipment for every procedure, but cost shifting is a major brick in the wall.
The fact of the matter is that if the goal is to reduce healthcare costs (which I would posit is not the goal of the administration, or yourself), we could impose tort reform, and require that all healthcare facilities be required to post the cost of procedures (in addition to other things). This is done with Lasik and many cosmetic surgeries, which have all gotten less expensive over the past 15 years. As I said, however, the purpose of this so called “reform” is not to reduce costs, but to give more control of our lives to the government class.
I do however find it funny that you protest the fact that the cost of healthcare is 16% of GDP, but that the cost of government is exceeding that is nonchalantly dismissed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1615 hrs
I’m not going to sit here and argue anecdotally with you, though. I’m simply pointing out that just because it didn’t happen to your dad doesn’t mean it never happens.
Scott, it will happen under a government system too…. It’s called RATIONING. Every major public plan has a rationing body.
I will not deny that healthcare in this country is too expensive. The fact is that government healthcare will not reduce costs, and there are methods by which costs could be reduced that are ignored by the media and the administration. There is no attempt at bipartisanship here, it is their way or the highway. Paul Ryan has been fighting to get any attention for the Republican bill which, by the way, would garner more public support (I know I live in a fantasy world right?) than does the current house bill. The problem is that it is just ignored.
During the Bush administration every picayune gripe from the left was plastered all over the TV, the newspaper, and the internet. During this administration, the collusion between the mass media and the administration is SHOCKING. How many right wing groups are getting the attention that Cindy Sheehan got a few years ago? How many times have you heard about the Republican alternative to the house bill?
I suppose there is a deeper, more insidious point to be made. The fourth estate of our government is supposed to be the media, and they are complicit in the planning of the administration. Fox news is denounced as second rate, and MSNBC (which is more left than fox is right) with Olbermann and Maddow are asked to have a chair on Meet the Press every other week.
Ultimately I just cannot get past the UNBELIEVABLE hypocrisy on the left with regard to healthcare. Why is it that when it comes to abortion, a medical procedure, the mantra is “Keep your laws off my body”, but with healthcare it is “Put your hands all over my body.”
Ant means to meet an end, just as Rahm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1632 hrs
Same thing. The insurance industry is made up of plain ‘ol American citizens.
Right. What’s good for Aetna is good for America.
The government has done NOTHING as well as it can be done by the private sector. From county workers building roads, to health insurance, to retirement planning
So the fact that Medicare has done a better job of controlling cost increases, operates with a much lower overhead and is much better liked by its participants means what to you? Nothing? The fact that the VA is tops in patient satisfaction? What about retirement? The good ol’ private sector did what for retirement age seniors before Social Security? How good was that working? Social Security is the most popular social program in America. I think that speaks pretty well to how much people like it and want it to continue. If there’s a better measure of success, I don’t know what it is.
All of which is simply to say that it’s not as clear cut as you pretend it is. You can argue this or that against my examples, but your government-is-always-bad meme is not as clear to many of us as it is to you. Stop assuming you’re reaching someone with that just by blurting it out.
When we pass this healthcare bill we will have headed down a road that can never be turned back from.
You are so right. Kind of like passing Medicare or Social Security. Health care reform will pass, people will like it and it’ll become a permanent addition to what we expect our government to do. That is what is freaking you people out. That once it passes the cat’s out of the bag. People will realize we didn’t turn into the USSR and that, hey, everyone seems to have insurance now. Nobody will want to go back.
like defensive treatment (tort laws)
You guys keep saying this—and was at one time suckered into siding with you!—but the CBO estimates that malpractice suit costs are less than 2% of overall medical spending and that reducing it by 25-30% would give us about a .4% reduction in cost.
Look at these graphs again and tell me that a .4 reduction in cost is something worth getting one’s panties in a twist about:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html
if the goal is to reduce healthcare costs (which I would posit is not the goal of the administration, or yourself)
That certainly is something I’m very concerned about. I just wrote this yesterday:
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=3014
we could impose tort reform, and require that all healthcare facilities be required to post the cost of procedures (in addition to other things). This is done with Lasik and many cosmetic surgeries
That’s a good theory. But you know what else we could do instead? WE could do what has been shown time and time again to work. The world’s a big place, man. Look around. See what everyone else gets? What they pay? Let’s learn something. There are a lot of models to choose from. Only some of them are “government health care” or even just “government insurance.” Our currently proposed reforms are neither of those—pretty moderate.
you protest the fact that the cost of healthcare is 16% of GDP, but that the cost of government is exceeding that is nonchalantly dismissed.
That would be because it’s totally irrelevant.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1647 hrs
Doug, pretty much everything in comment 35 is ... exasperatingly wrong, or missing the point, or paranoid. I don’t have the energy to respond to the sixteen things in it that desperately need calling out, after having just wrote a lengthy response to your comment 34. Indulge me a response on it if you would.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1652 hrs
So the fact that Medicare has done a better job of controlling cost increases, operates with a much lower overhead and is much better liked by its participants means what to you?
Not true.
The fact that the VA is tops in patient satisfaction?
Not true.
Social Security is the most popular social program in America.
Not true.
If there’s a better measure of success, I don’t know what it is.
401k
You guys keep saying this—and was at one time suckered into siding with you!—but the CBO estimates that malpractice suit costs are less than 2% of overall medical spending and that reducing it by 25-30% would give us about a .4% reduction in cost.
Not true.
Look at these graphs again and tell me that a .4 reduction in cost is something worth getting one’s panties in a twist about
Malpractice Insurance
Preventative MedicineThat certainly is something I’m very concerned about. I just wrote this yesterday:
No thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1707 hrs
Look, man. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Just sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying “not true” doesn’t make the facts go away.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1718 hrs
Scott:
You have kept on bringing up the “fact” the the government has done a great job of controlling Medicare costs. I have bit my tongue long enough. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act designed to hold down Medicare costs by setting yearly and cumulative spending targets. If actual spending exceeds the target for a given year, reimbursement rates for doctors are lowered the next year. In other words, if Medicare budgets one million dollars this year for angiograms, and sets the price at $10,000; they are anticipating 100 procedures. If there are 200 procedures done and the budgets gets blown out of the water, next year the price is set at $5,000 so they can cover the 200 procedures and make the next year’s budget. That is a great way to maintain costs isn’t it? ABRACADABRA, SHAZAM! We had zero budget growth and contained costs. Meanwhile the doctors are getting half what they got the year before for the same amount of work, and those costs will get passed to the privately insured, thus, driving up costs by more than market forces alone would acount for. Which part of this dont you understand? (the numbers presented here are purely hypothetical and do not represent actual budgets or costs, but serve only as a simplified version of how the system operates, so please do not attack the figures or over-simplification)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1726 hrs
Look, man. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Just sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying “not true” doesn’t make the facts go away.
What facts? You have presented no facts…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1733 hrs
You have kept on bringing up the “fact” the the government has done a great job of controlling Medicare costs.
THere’s no need for quotes. it’s just a plain fact.
If you’re going to suggest that Medicare’s method of controlling costs isn’t viable without a pool of privately insured people to stick it to afterward, then riddle me this: How do other countries get away with everyone—literally everyone—paying less than US Medicare rates for common services and products?
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1733 hrs
I have a master’s degree.
My husband has his MD and works for the state.
We have good insurance.
My teenage child has been cutting their body with a razor I called their Psychiatrist ....I can get in in March or go to the ER.
I fell a few weeks ago stepping over a stupid dog gate. I landed on the tile in the family room. I called to see an orthopedic doc as my knee hurts to high heaven. The first available appointment is April or I can go to the ER.
My oldest has a in-grown toe nail and he plays basketball. He can be seen in 6 weeks….or I can go to the ER.
I live in Madison, where per capita there are more docs per person, than most locations in the US. ER care is great damn if I want to see our own doctors anytime soon. Am I the only person with good insurance with this problem?
Am I scared of social medicine?......why should I be.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1734 hrs
Because you say Social Security is the most popular social program in America doesn’t make that comment a fact.
That is an opinion.
When you say take that opinion and take it to the next level based on your poor assumption, and say people must like it.
That is a LIE.
People will realize we didn’t turn into the USSR and that, hey, everyone seems to have insurance now. Nobody will want to go back.
Not true.
And when you claim a one trillion dollar bill is irrelevant,
that is not true…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1740 hrs
What facts? You have presented no facts…
Try starting with some of the things you dismissed with “not true.”
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1740 hrs
THere’s no need for quotes. it’s just a plain fact.
No, it is a lie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1741 hrs
Try starting with some of the things you dismissed with “not true.”
I tried. They turned out to be lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1742 hrs
Lies? So tell me. Has Medicare costs risen more slowly or more quickly than the private sector?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/bill_kristol_says_thing_that_a.html
Is the VA tops in customer satisfaction or isn’t it?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1746 hrs
So the fact that Medicare has done a better job of controlling cost increases, operates with a much lower overhead and is much better liked by its participants means what to you? Nothing? The fact that the VA is tops in patient satisfaction? What about retirement? The good ol’ private sector did what for retirement age seniors before Social Security? How good was that working? Social Security is the most popular social program in America. I think that speaks pretty well to how much people like it and want it to continue. If there’s a better measure of success, I don’t know what it is.
Medicare controls costs because of cost shifting, it is the reason that private health insurers are charged more than medicare patients… Ask your primary care physician next time you see him/her. Social security is the most popular social program in America BECAUSE EVERY ONE IN AMERICA IS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE, was that a JOKE!!!!!!????????? The VA is not nearly as popular as you seem to believe, ask some vets. Your measure of success has been skewed by Michael Moore.
All of which is simply to say that it’s not as clear cut as you pretend it is. You can argue this or that against my examples, but your government-is-always-bad meme is not as clear to many of us as it is to you. Stop assuming you’re reaching someone with that just by blurting it out.
My government is always bad meme is not meme. There is a large portion of our society that is not blinded by the perceived value of social welfare, they are all around you, and your denial of the existence of my attitude in society is telling.
Right. What’s good for Aetna is good for America.
Yes, right. The CEO uses his bonus to buy a Yacht, built by dozens of Americans, with materials created in factories staffed by HUNDREDS of Americancs. The sales manager uses his bonus to buy his wife an Escalade, built by dozens of Americans, with materials made right here in Saukville, Wisconsin at Charter Steel. The Salesman uses his commission to take his family on a trip to Disneyworld, staffed, maintained and built by THOUSANDS of Americans, and exchange students.
Would you open your eyes and look at the BIG picture?
Look at these graphs again and tell me that a .4 reduction in cost is something worth getting one’s panties in a twist about:
Didn’t the CBO just say that the healthcare program might reduce the deficit by 118,000,000,000 over the course of the next ten years? By my check that is just under 1% of the tally we are racking up, with this year coming in at 1,400,000,000,000… The congressional Democrats and the Administration seem to be wetting themselves about that. Not sure if you’ve ever noticed this, but the majority of all government programs overrun their budgets by as much as 28%... Every year. You wouldn’t believe my source for that nugget, because it was paid for by a private business organization.
That would be because it’s totally irrelevant.
That you would say this demonstrates my point exactly. The cost of government and government programs is strangling the economy in this country. The growth of government and government programs has done naught to solve problems, but only introduce new ones that need to be solved with further expenditure.
The CBO estimates on the cost of this program, are just that, estimates. The costs only include the people in this country who are currently uninsured, they do not include the number of people who will be dumped onto the system by employers looking to cut costs (initially) during a recession. The fact that they are budgeting six years worth of service with ten years worth of tax dollars aught to be telling to you, but it isn’t.
That certainly is something I’m very concerned about. I just wrote this yesterday
:
Then why on Earth would you support this legislation? Why don’t you fight for a bill that fits your criteria?
The answer to those questions (assumptive) is as follows:
1.) You can clearly see, as can the liberals in congress, that this is your only opportunity to make any kind of “reform” happen. Not only that, but it has to happen now. The American people elected a liberal, but they didn’t realize just how much of one, and his popularity is waning FAST. As Obama’s popularity wanes, so does the window in which this “reform” can be undertaken. Rather than fight for a bill that is truly good for America and solves the problems that we actually have (cost, not % covered), you would rather pass a bill that makes the rulemaker [government] a player in the insurance game. This “government option” seems unassuming enough, but in reality the goal is to force most people out of their private coverage and onto the system. Once this service has been provided, you realize that there is no chance it can be revoked, so you know you will have plenty of time to tweak it (if the economy can handle it).
2.) Second verse, same as the first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1748 hrs
Lies? So tell me. Has Medicare costs risen more slowly or more quickly than the private sector?
Yes they have, and I have demonstrated why. As to why doctors visits cost more in the US than in other countries, I would submit that it is because we 1) have more qualified physicians who 2) have more debt at graduation. I don’t mind paying for the best doctor when it comes to my health, do you?
That is the answer to the service half of your question, the product half is the same as cost transfer in this country only on an international scale, other countries cap what they will pay, the companies make it up where they can
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1752 hrs
Lies? So tell me. Has Medicare costs risen more slowly or more quickly than the private sector?
Lie. Medicare budget increases annually, as does the amount which I donate to Medicare.
Is the VA tops in customer satisfaction or isn’t it?
One study, done by the military about the VA, does not make fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1752 hrs
How do other countries get away with everyone—literally everyone—paying less than US Medicare rates for common services and products?
I already told you… US patients, Medicare/Medicaide/private Pay MUCH MORE than they do. This is how the money is recovered. Try and wrap your head around it…. Seriously, how else could our healthcare costs be so much higher? Evil corporations seeking more than 6% profits?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1827 hrs
Medicare controls costs because of cost shifting
And again I ask, what about countries which don’t have a pool of suckers to hit up with exorbitant costs?
As to why doctors visits cost more in the US than in other countries, I would submit that it is because we 1) have more qualified physicians
And where’s the evidence for this? Most importantly, do you have evidence that our more qualified physicians have fewer medical mistakes? Or have better outcomes overall? I think that you do not. I think you’re just supposing that it’s true because without such a reason you’d be forced to conclude that I’m right and that your anti-government ideology is wrong, wrong, wrong in this case.
Social security is the most popular social program in America BECAUSE EVERY ONE IN AMERICA IS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE, was that a JOKE!!!!!!????????? T
No, but your user of punctuation is!?!??! Seriously, I’m not equating popularity with participation rates. I’m talking about what the electorate has to say any time you try to fuck with it, as Republicans like to do every so often. How’d that work for Mr. Bush? People like his idea much? No. Because Social Security is popular. Try it yourself! Run for office on a platform of privatizing it. You won’t rise to the level of dog catcher in this country. That’s what I mean by popular.
Didn’t the CBO just say that the healthcare program might reduce the deficit by 118,000,000,000 over the course of the next ten years?
Without checking your numbers, yes, the CBO did say the health care proposals would reduce the deficit. That doesn’t mean they don’t cost money—of course they do. But that money isn’t borrowed. It’s paid for and then some. That’s where the deficit reduction comes in.
The cost of government and government programs is strangling the economy in this country.
Not really, but the cost of health care surely is hurting our economy.
Rather than fight for a bill that is truly good for America and solves the problems that we actually have (cost, not % covered)
The chief reason we’re not getting a bill that makes me 100% happy is because of people like yourself and the people who represent you in congress. The biggest cost control measure on the table is the public option and it’s people like YOU who cut the balls off it, not me.
This “government option” seems unassuming enough, but in reality the goal is to force most people out of their private coverage and onto the system.
Are you aware that there are other countries on this earth who have universal coverage using a mix of public and private insurance? Why haven’t they slid down this inexorably slippery slope you speak of? And did it ruin their economy? Quite the contrary. They pay less for health care than we do and everyone’s covered. Plus—no death panels! It’s amazing!
So tell me. Has Medicare costs risen more slowly or more quickly than the private sector?
Lie. Medicare budget increases annually, as does the amount which I donate to Medicare.
Um, it’s true. Did you even bother to look at the link I provided? I said it before and I’ll say it again: You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Deal.
One study, done by the military about the VA, does not make fact.
I just had this conversation here in these very pages not a couple of months ago. NO, it’s not a “study by the military.” If you look a teeny, tiny bit closer you’ll see that it was an American Customer Satisfaction Index study, the kind that’s been done for fifteen years by the National Quality Research Center out of the University of Michigan.
US patients, Medicare/Medicaide/private Pay MUCH MORE than they do. This is how the money is recovered.
You keep saying that but you don’t explain how physicians in London and Quebec and Hamburg are recouping their money from patients in Milwaukee. How does that work, exactly?
Seriously, how else could our healthcare costs be so much higher?
That’s a really, really good question. But I feel pretty certain that it’s not because patients in Luxembourg are underpaying for colonoscopies. Pretty certain indeed.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 1952 hrs
Scott, what do the unemployment numbers look like in these utopian countries you speak of, even in the best of times? Oh, and don’t tell me that there is no connection.
You keep saying that but you don’t explain how physicians in London and Quebec and Hamburg are recouping their money from patients in Milwaukee. How does that work, exactly?
Not doctors, drug and device companies, as I have stated numerous times.
Anyway, after checking out your blog site, I have come to discover that you are a teacher… You are unlikely to be affected by any legislation passed anyway, your benefits are to be protected. oops spilled the beans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2017 hrs
No. Because Social Security is popular.
This is a lie.
Not really, but the cost of health care surely is hurting our economy.
Funny how our Marxist friend says 16% of the economy is hurting the economy, but says a $1T health care bill is ‘irrelevant’. Also funny how this Marxist says 16% of the economy is hurting, yet avidly argues against lowering the tax rate? I smell a Marxist hypocrite who hasn’t spent much time applying common sense.
Um, it’s true. Did you even bother to look at the link I provided?
No, it’s a lie. No account of cost shifting whatsoever.
NO, it’s not a “study by the military.”
Fine, it’s a study by a gov’t organization about another gov’t organization ... One unscientific study does not produce fact…
And again I ask, what about countries which don’t have a pool of suckers to hit up with exorbitant costs?
What a poor display of understanding of health care…
The biggest cost control measure on the table is the public option
Lie.
And did it ruin their economy? Quite the contrary.
Lie.
They pay less for health care than we do and everyone’s covered. Plus—no death panels!
Lie.
Posted by Smeety on November 19, 2009 at 2030 hrs
Okay, well, I’ve tried to introduce the facts as I understand them. I’ve tried to represent the ideas of both myself and Democrats. I’ve tried to engage the ideas that you’ve brought to the table (such as they are). I’ve written hundreds of words and read hundreds more. I’m quite comfortable with this discussion remaining here for posterity just as it is. I don’t know what else to say. Except: I think you’re pretty nuts. Dismissing facts with a fingers-in-your-ears “lie.” Dismissing valid university research as naked government manipulation. Dismissing your well-meaing fellow Americans as “Marxists.”
You haven’t bought a bunch of fertilizer and rented a U-Haul truck recently have you? I’m just asking.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 2051 hrs
You haven’t bought a bunch of fertilizer and rented a U-Haul truck recently have you? I’m just asking.
Wow, you get that one from the administration…. Real classy, and really cements your standing as and absolute JACKASS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2119 hrs
And yet scott, you have not acknowledged that the reason costs are lower in other parts of the world and in Medicare are the REASON that private insurance costs have sky-rocketed in this country. You ask how costs can be lower in other parts of the world. Because of the limits that governments will pay for services, companies price drugs/equipment etc. so doctors will purchase their items. They then make up those loss leaders by charging more to doctors who don’t have those caps, those doctors in the US who can relay those charges to private insurance. When/if the US has limits on ALL insurance payments to ‘control’ costs, those companies will either go out of business or severely curtail their R&D. That leaves either inferior products, or less research, neither is a good thing.
As for evidence of more qualified doctors here in the US, I submit to you the fact that the doctor shortage is less severe here (though that depends on the specialty, and GPs and primary care physicians are already in short supply, what will happen when 18 million more patients suddenly need service) than in other countries, and in fact, doctors trained in other countries come here; presumably so they can make more money, not a bad thing in my opinion, because they are not limited by government on how much they can charge. Are there more mistakes and negative outcomes? Yes, there are. as an absolute number; as a percentage it is not out of line with other developed countries. Again I ask you, would you rather pay more for better? I am not attacking your position, you are welcome to your opinions, and to the right to fight for them, but be intellectually honest and recognize valid arguments for what they are, just as you demand others do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2124 hrs
Okay, well, I’ve tried to introduce the facts as I understand them. I’ve tried to represent the ideas of both myself and Democrats. I’ve tried to engage the ideas that you’ve brought to the table (such as they are). I’ve written hundreds of words and read hundreds more. I’m quite comfortable with this discussion remaining here for posterity just as it is. I don’t know what else to say. Except: I think you’re pretty nuts. Dismissing facts with a fingers-in-your-ears “lie.” Dismissing valid university research as naked government manipulation. Dismissing your well-meaing fellow Americans as “Marxists.”
Sanctimonious to the end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2133 hrs
really cements your standing as and absolute JACKASS.
Right, Doug. Because people like yourself just won’t tolerate that kind of tone!
Funny how our Marxist friend ... I smell a Marxist hypocrite ...
Ahem.
Elovrich, I’ve addressed the points in your first paragraph a couple of times already.
what will happen when 18 million more patients suddenly need service
Well, that would be, what—an increase of about 6%? I guess the worst case scenario is that we might have to wait 6% longer for a doctor’s appointment. But I suspect it would not happen that way. After all, when do these reforms take effect? Years from now. I think the industry might be able to ramp up a bit to handle some of that increase.
doctors trained in other countries come here; presumably so they can make more money
Yeah, that’s possible. I really am not familiar with data on that subject, but it’s certainly plausible. I’m not sure that explains why I should pay twice as much as my English in-laws for a stress test, though.
the doctor shortage is less severe here
Really. Are you sure? I just googled it and I’m reading that the US has 2.3 physicians per 1000 people. The UK has 2.2 and Canada has 2.1. But Australia, Finland, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, France… whew, my fingers are getting tired!... Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Italy…all have MORE physicians per 1000 people than we do. At the very least I would venture to guess that physician shortages are unrelated to universal health coverage or the degree of government involvement in health care.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 2141 hrs
Scott, you called me a terrorist, and you think that tone is typical of the right? Wow, you are shallower and more narrow sighted than I thought.
Typical leftist, call names first, declare yourself the winner later.
Seriously, who is it exactly that you think you are? and where do you get off behaving so poorly… You have five kids for Gods sake, start acting like it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2150 hrs
Doug, I have been insulated more times and in more ways in these pages that I can possibly ever hope to count. Name calling? These pages are filled with the ones that have been directed at me. Several examples of which are on this very page. If you think I’m going to sit idly by and be lectured about my tone you’ve got another thing coming. You yourself have called me a jackass, sanctimonious and said that I hate my country. Fuck. You.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 2159 hrs
Doug, I have been insulated more times and in more ways in these pages that I can possibly ever hope to count. Name calling? These pages are filled with the ones that have been directed at me. Several examples of which are on this very page. If you think I’m going to sit idly by and be lectured about my tone you’ve got another thing coming. You yourself have called me a jackass, sanctimonious and said that I hate my country. Fuck. You.
The only thing you are “insulated” from is the real world. I called you a Jackass, Scott… Is that anywhere near calling someone a terrorist? I will lecture you on your tone, because you are nearly twice my age and participating in the kind of ideological exchange that twelve year olds devise. You are sanctimonious, and I never said you hate this country, simply that you wish to turn it into something that already exists “on this earth”. as for your final comment.
POINT. PROVEN.
You have clearly been reduced to blithering, and should re-boot your teleprompter if you wish to continue.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2207 hrs
You have kept on bringing up the “fact” the the government has done a great job of controlling Medicare costs.
THere’s no need for quotes. it’s just a plain fact.
If you’re going to suggest that Medicare’s method of controlling costs isn’t viable without a pool of privately insured people to stick it to afterward, then riddle me this: How do other countries get away with everyone—literally everyone—paying less than US Medicare rates for common services and products?
Medicare controls costs because of cost shifting
And again I ask, what about countries which don’t have a pool of suckers to hit up with exorbitant costs?
As to why doctors visits cost more in the US than in other countries, I would submit that it is because we 1) have more qualified physicians
And where’s the evidence for this? Most importantly, do you have evidence that our more qualified physicians have fewer medical mistakes? Or have better outcomes overall? I think that you do not. I think you’re just supposing that it’s true because without such a reason you’d be forced to conclude that I’m right and that your anti-government ideology is wrong, wrong, wrong in this case.
scott;
you have not addressed them at all, you have asked rhetorical questions rather than directly answering the points I have presented. Agree with them or refute them,, but don’t say you have addressed them
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2210 hrs
I never said you hate this country
Really.
if you hate this country so much, why don’t you move to one that already has all of these programs you so desperately want for yourself?
Point, as they say, “PROVEN.”
I didn’t come in here with insult guns blazing, Doug. It was only several hundred words later after having been called a Marxist, America-hating, sanctimonious jackass that I’d had enough. Go back to comments 2 and 3 if you doubt it. After a while, I push back. I’m not above it. Guilty as charged. But if you’re going to play like that don’t cry about it when someone hits back. I notice, however, that none of the bullshit directed at me moved you to any outrage about tone. Funny, that.
And by the way, I don’t know what you think I do for a living, but I can assure you I’m not a government employee. Never have been. And I certainly am not in any union. Never have been. And I certainly don’t work for a public school. And I certainly do have private health insurance paid for by myself and my—quite private—employer.
Elovrich, I think I am addressing your point. You say that health care in this country (doctor visits, procedures, medications, devices, etc.) cost more here because they cost less elsewhere. There are a few things that don’t make sense about this to me, but it’s most clearly articulated by pointing out that there is no way for a physician in the UK to “make up for” underpayment there by charging more to American patients—because he or she has no American patients. As far as drugs are concerned, I think there’s a question of scale to be considered. It’s a simple fact that even though we’re charged twice as much, it’s still a drop in the enormous bucket of global drug revenues. We’d have to be paying twenty times as much to “make up for” the (allegedly) below-cost prices in effect throughout the rest of the world.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 2231 hrs
Poor. Scott.
Simply put, one cannot make a reedick claim like VA coverage is better than private health care and not be expected to be laughed out of the room…
And one cannot attempt to reduce the cost shifting discussion into a one dimensional thought. It requires more than, ‘And again I ask, what about countries which don’t have a pool of suckers to hit up with exorbitant costs? ’ Our friend is obviously not open minded enough to explore the fact that this policy is part of the problem he appears to deplore.
And one cannot dismiss the economies of these countries with which such socialist policies are in place. Europe is in a semi-permanent recession with semi-permanent high unemployment, going on twenty years (off the top of my head)...
I stand by my statement that he is a Marxist. One cannot advocate socialist policy and deny being a socialist.
This discussion has digressed into non-productive. I am fine with that. I’d rather this than hear lies about the joys of the public option.
Posted by Smeety on November 19, 2009 at 2242 hrs
I’m not going to allow myself to be baited into a shouting match.
Sorry Scott, as the bigger man, I’m gonna act as such.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2251 hrs
Smeety: And yet you really have no argument against my assertion that the VA has been found extremely satisfactory by its users. (I even provided scientific evidence.) And you have no answers for my questions about international cost-shifting (other than that they’re “one dimensional,” whatever that means). And you have presented no evidence to suggest that differences in health care delivery are to blame for various economic woes in Europe. Could you flesh out some of these ideas?
Doug: See ya big fella. Heh.
Posted by scott on November 19, 2009 at 2306 hrs
scott:
It is not the doctors that are recouping their costs. You are correct, UK Drs have no patients here. It is the companies that are selling them products that are selling to them at a loss. Lower cost for the Drs mean lower prices to their patients. These companies then charge US doctors more to make up for the losses (or smaller profits) that they had in the over-seas sales. THAT is the transference of costs. I don’t know how much more clearly to present my case. if you don;t follow it now, then there is a basic failure to communicate on one of or parts. Either I ain’t talking straight or you ain’t hearing to well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 2329 hrs
Simply put, one cannot make a reedick claim like VA coverage is better than private health care and not be expected to be laughed out of the room…
Just anecdotal but I find the VA coverage to be very satisfactory.
And it’s free for life.
Hard to beat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0017 hrs
It is the companies that are selling them products
Please think about my point above regarding scale. And add to it the fact that I don’t think doctor’s office visits are being cost-shifted based on tongue depressors. I know medical supplies are expensive, but come on. There’s no way office visits here are double based on supplies. It’s not that I don’t understand your point; I do. It’s that I think the scale is wrong, placing the US market in a much larger role than it can really occupy in the global market.
Fact, that is anecdotal for sure. But at least we can say that it’s supported by real data. The (mocked and denied) study I cited above shows it: People who get care in the VA are much more satisfied with it than other people are with their health care.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 0049 hrs
It appears that I have the huge advantage of common sense here.
And yet you really have no argument against my assertion that the VA has been found extremely satisfactory by its users. (I even provided scientific evidence.)
Lie. You have one gov’t study about another gov’t entity.
And you have no answers for my questions about international cost-shifting (other than that they’re “one dimensional,” whatever that means).
Lie. You are simply denying the implied costs of cost-shifting. Once again, one-dimensional and reedick.
And you have presented no evidence to suggest that differences in health care delivery are to blame for various economic woes in Europe.
Lie. High tax rate in Europe (socialism) = bad economy. It doesn’t get any simpler.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0846 hrs
Lie. You have one gov’t study about another gov’t entity.
Well, there’s nowhere to go with you. If a real scientific study is so easily and completely dismissed as a government conspiracy to mislead people, there’s just nowhere to go.
You’re a paranoid nut. I would as well arguing with a guy on a street corner preaching about the end of the world.
Lie. You are simply denying the implied costs of cost-shifting.
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. How do doctors in Helsinki recoup costs by overcharging patients in Chicago? I guess such a “reedick” idea is obvious to you, but to thoughtful, intellectually honest people, it’s pretty bewildering.
It doesn’t get any simpler.
It doesn’t get any more black and white, thoughtless or evidence-free.
Good luck with that. By the way, I hear aluminum foil blocks the government mind control rays—and it makes a lovely hat.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 0908 hrs
If a real scientific study is so easily and completely dismissed as a government conspiracy to mislead people, there’s just nowhere to go.
Lie. Not scientific.
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. How do doctors in Helsinki recoup costs by overcharging patients in Chicago? I guess such a “reedick” idea is obvious to you, but to thoughtful, intellectually honest people, it’s pretty bewildering.
Lie. I’m referring to Medicare cost shifting, which you are selectively ignoring.
It doesn’t get any more black and white, thoughtless or evidence-free.
No evidence that high taxes cause recessions? Puh-leez
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0916 hrs
Four Key Facts about the Costs of Harry Reid’s Health Care Bill
Here are four key facts about the costs of the Democrats’ 2,074-page Senate health bill:1. According to the CBO, only 1 percent of the bill’s costs would kick in prior to the fifth year of its alleged “first ten years” (2010 to 2019). Starting in 2014, 99 percent of the bill’s costs would hit—meaning that the bill’s true first 10 years are from 2014 to 2023. Before then, it wouldn’t really take effect.
2. In the bills’ real first decade (2014-23), it would cost $1.8 trillion, raise Americans’ taxes by $892 billion, and siphon $802 billion out of already barely-solvent Medicare to spend elsewhere—according to CBO projections.
3. According to CBO projections, in the bill’s real first decade (2014-23), it would do one of two things: It would either cut doctors’ pay under Medicare by $431 billion (as it claims it would but as nobody believes it would), or it would raise United States deficits by $286 billion
4. So, if the bill doesn’t follow through on its pledge to cut doctors’ pay by a drastic 23 percent under Medicare and never raise it back up, it would violate President Obama’s very public and very emphatic pledge in his Sept. 9 speech to the joint-session of Congress that he would “not sign” any bill that “adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” This bill would raise deficits by $2.86 trillion dimes. Read my lips, what?
Harry’s Health Care Facts per CBOPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1304 hrs
I was just going to ask where you’re getting this analysis (because only pieces of it can be called fact) when I saw the Weekly Standard link. A blog post consisting of someone’s opinion of what the facts mean hosted on the web site of a neoconservative opinion magazine isn’t exactly what i’d call a deal closer. It raises some interesting points, but by itself it isn’t very persuasive.
Before you blow a goddamned gasket on that one, remember—you instantly and absolutely dismissed the VA study done by a real, academic research organization affiliated with a major university because you believe its taxpayer funding is definitely biasing its results. Me refusing to be swayed by a blog post on a conservative publication is peanuts compared to that standard of mistrust.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1319 hrs
SCOTT;
do you disagree with the CBO numbers or argue their authenticity? Or are you simply against that fact that they were culled from a secondary rather than a primary source? Are the numers, the facts in those 4 points, in dispute?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1547 hrs
I’m simply pointing out that this piece is a mix of (presumably) fact and opinion. Would it really be helpful if I went through your quote and tediously parsed out the bits I think are editorializing?
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1556 hrs
scott;
It wasn’t my post, but since you offered, I will accept. Yes please let us know which numbers, reputedly from the CBO, that you think are either not in fact from that source, or are accurately attributed, but with which you disagree. Then, please, provide a more persuasive analysis of the numbers that you don’t have a problem with, either your own analysis or that of a source you consider forthright and reliable.
FWIW, this is the way that reasaonable discussion goes. My side puts up reasonable arguments, you counter them, by either stating where the problems are, and then advancing another theory or solution that encompasses agreed upon facts. The CBO in this case seems to be an agreeable source of facts, so please, either show where the facts are misquoted or incorrect. Or advance a counter-analysis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1617 hrs
What you’re doing is making me debate the author of that article. But okay.
In item 1 above the author isn’t really making a claim other than “the bill’s true first 10 years are from 2014 to 2023.” He seems to imply that there’s something deceptive about that. I don’t find it so.
In item 2 he says “raise Americans’ taxes by $892 billion.” I’d like to know whose taxes those are. Mine? People making a quarter mil? People with $15k health insurance premiums? Who are we talking about here and how much? “raise American’s taxes” suggests that it’s widespread. I doubt that’s the case. Probably it’s not as scary as it seems out of context.
Also in item 2 it says “siphon $802 billion out of already barely-solvent Medicare to spend elsewhere.” Without knowing exactly what he’s getting at here, I’m inclined to wonder if it’s not the same misleading bullshit I’ve heard before from anti-reformists. They go around scaring people into thinking seniors’ medicare benefits are going to be cut and that’s not true. Something about Medicare Advantage—private insurers taking government money—are going to stop being overpaid, as I understand it. Even the AARP says that Medicare benefits are NOT cut by the current reforms.
It would either cut doctors’ pay under Medicare by $431 billion (as it claims it would but as nobody believes it would), or it would raise United States deficits by $286 billion
It’s funny how he wants to use CBO number but seems to reject their finding that it doesn’t increase the deficit.
Bottom line is the author may be using CBO numbers, but may be using them selectively. And then he’s telling you what they mean. Which is his analysis and opinion. Which, I point out again, in some places seems to be different than what the CBO says themselves.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1644 hrs
It’s funny how he wants to use CBO number but seems to reject their finding that it doesn’t increase the deficit.
2. In the bills’ real first decade (2014-23), it would cost $1.8 trillion, raise Americans’ taxes by $892 billion, and siphon $802 billion out of already barely-solvent Medicare to spend elsewhere—according to CBO projections.
The logic with regard to deficit reduction is rejecting the federal budget projections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1704 hrs
Just found this nugget in the CBO estimate as presented to Senator Reid:
CBO’s assessment is that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average,
probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. (italics added for emphasis by me).So, the public option will have HIGHER premiums than the private policies, and pay the doctors the same amount.
More excerpts:
Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector
Reducing Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients
The legislation also would establish an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which would be required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending. (why does this sopund like rationing to me?)
The total cost of mandates imposed on the private sector, as estimated by CBO and JCT, would greatly exceed the threshold established in UMRA for private entities ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation)
CBO estimates that the total cost of intergovernmental mandates would greatly exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for state, local, and tribal entities ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation).
In addition, the legislation would preempt state and local
laws that conflict with or are in addition to new federal standards established by the legislation. Those preemptions would limit the application of state and local laws, but CBO estimates that they would not impose significant costs. (well at least the co-optiong of states’ rights won’t impose significant costs, just insignificant ones)I hope this analysis is helpful for the Senate’s deliberations. If you have any questions,
please contact me or CBO staff. The primary staff contacts for this analysis are Philip
Ellis and Holly Harvey.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf
DirectorPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1716 hrs
That’s because it “would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees.” In other words, not deny people’s coverage as much and be serving a sicker population. If only we’d tied it to medicare instead of making it negotiate on it’s own with its estimated 6 million subscribers…
But hey! At least you all can stop complaining that it’s going to put private insurance out of business, right?
Right?
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1728 hrs
scott:
why would it attract a less healthy group of people? Private insurance won’t be able to turn down customers for pre-existing conditions, so there must be some other element that will differentiate the pools the two types of plans will draw from…
and less management does not mean less denial, it may just be that certain charges and procedures will get a blanket ‘no’ and circumstances be damned, when the government says no they mean no…. that can be interpreted either way.
now what about the other points?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1749 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 03:37 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).