Sanders draws Democratic challenger tired of his 'Robin Hood shtick'

[Highmark]

Just now, f7ben said:

absolutely ....but I think we also need to prioritize things like healthcare albeit I would prefer it done at a state level

Just another boondoggle for govt to become larger and more controlling and more intrusive into our lives.  I'm simply going to choose the side of less govt on everything anymore.  

[f7ben]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Just another boondoggle for govt to become larger and more controlling and more intrusive into our lives.  I'm simply going to choose the side of less govt on everything anymore.  

I'm not sure what the answer is......but its likely going to come to UHC as the only way out. Between the private insurers fucking it up and the government making it worse there is no way back now.

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I'm not sure what the answer is......but its likely going to come to UHC as the only way out. Between the private insurers fucking it up and the government making it worse there is no way back now.

In the end the cost of care has to be controlled.   Only way to significantly reduce costs.   With govt that means paying those in HC less and rationing.   I hope people are ready for all the consequences of that.  For example everyone thinks prescription drugs are such a large driving factor.   They are only 10% of our nations HC costs.   Yes profits are huge in that industry and generally run about 30% but if you eliminate profits you only save 3% on our nations HC.   Not insignificant but what incentive is there for companies to invest in R&D with no profits.   Also keep in mind the govt is making out huge on those taxes.   Easily as much as 50% when all taxes are accounted for.  Now your down to 1.5%.   

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, Highmark said:

In the end the cost of care has to be controlled.   Only way to significantly reduce costs.   With govt that means paying those in HC less and rationing.   I hope people are ready for all the consequences of that.  For example everyone thinks prescription drugs are such a large driving factor.   They are only 10% of our nations HC costs.   Yes profits are huge in that industry and generally run about 30% but if you eliminate profits you only save 3% on our nations HC.   Not insignificant but what incentive is there for companies to invest in R&D with no profits.   Also keep in mind the govt is making out huge on those taxes.   Easily as much as 50% when all taxes are accounted for.  Now your down to 1.5%.   

I don't think most Americans that want a single payer system have a clue what kind of cut in care that will mean.  I'm for a single payer system....but, I understand what it means also.  Wait until people get notice that they have used up both of their "free" visits for their family for the year.  That sprained ankle boo boo most people just walk off and Junior with a bad cough that a couple of Luden's would have fixed did them in.  Those are the retards that are killing our systems anyway.  Oh...and the GSW.  But they're all honkies.

 

[f7ben]

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I don't think most Americans that want a single payer system have a clue what kind of cut in care that will mean.  I'm for a single payer system....but, I understand what it means also.  Wait until people get notice that they have used up both of their "free" visits for their family for the year.  That sprained ankle boo boo most people just walk off and Junior with a bad cough that a couple of Luden's would have fixed did them in.  Those are the retards that are killing our systems anyway.  Oh...and the GSW.  But they're all honkies.

 

Other countries that have UHC have it just as good as we have now in the US if not better ....sorry bout your narrative 

[Zambroski]

Just now, f7ben said:

Other countries that have UHC have it just as good as we have now in the US if not better ....sorry bout your narrative 

What narrative?  Did you just have a fucking stroke?  Do I need to go back and maybe rephrase it for you Indiana folks.  Or do you not really understand how countries with UHC work?  Both?

 

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

What narrative?  Did you just have a fucking stroke?  Do I need to go back and maybe rephrase it for you Indiana folks.  Or do you not really understand how countries with UHC work?  Both?

 

On average , every 1st world country with UHC has a better health care system than the US.....do I need to get out the crayons for your retarded ass???

Heres a clue , for those in the US that arent 1%er's or lucky enough to have cadillac insurance plans......the HC in the US aint so hot

[SnowRider]

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

On average , every 1st world country with UHC has a better health care system than the US.....do I need to get out the crayons for your retarded ass???

Heres a clue , for those in the US that arent 1%er's or lucky enough to have cadillac insurance plans......the HC in the US aint so hot

.7 Momo - you're coming around on some issues.  Yes - every other industrialized country has some form of UHC and it is better in average than ours for a fraction of the cost.  Most countries spend 1/3 - 1/2 per capita that we spend for better healthcare on average.  

And you're getting a feel for how absolutely fucking stupid Lil Momo is....  Absolutely dumber than dirt   

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

On average , every 1st world country with UHC has a better health care system than the US.....do I need to get out the crayons for your retarded ass???

Heres a clue , for those in the US that arent 1%er's or lucky enough to have cadillac insurance plans......the HC in the US aint so hot

Relax, I'll go back and re-write my post for you....it must have been too complex.

[Zambroski]

Just now, SnowRider said:

.7 Momo - you're coming around on some issues.  Yes - every other industrialized country has some form of UHC and it is better in average than ours for a fraction of the cost.  Most countries spend 1/3 - 1/2 per capita that we spend for better healthcare on average.  

And you're getting a feel for how absolutely fucking stupid Lil Momo is....  Absolutely dumber than dirt   

 

[f7ben]

 fucking Z .....so dumb but yet so entertaining 

Edited July 13, 2017 by f7ben

[Highmark]

22 hours ago, f7ben said:

On average , every 1st world country with UHC has a better health care system than the US.....do I need to get out the crayons for your retarded ass???

Heres a clue , for those in the US that arent 1%er's or lucky enough to have cadillac insurance plans......the HC in the US aint so hot

According to who or what?  Life expectancy?   Infant mortality rate?   

When you look at survival rates of most major diseases the US is at the top.

If you take the time and look you will see the failings around the world with UHC.

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-tanner5apr05-story.html

Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets

 

AS THEY TACK left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support — along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance.

You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care."

Another common concern is that the young and healthy will go without insurance, leaving a risk pool of older and sicker people. This results in higher insurance premiums for those who are insured. But that's only true if the law forbids insurers from charging their customers according to the cost of covering them. If companies can charge more to cover people who are likely to need more care — smokers, the elderly, etc. — then it won't make any difference who does or doesn't buy insurance.

Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending — a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis.

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms — such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets — that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable

As H. L. Mencken said: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." Universal healthcare is a textbook case.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Highmark

[Highmark]

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option

Universal Health Care Not Best Option

By Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared in The Bulletin on February 23, 2009

Supporters of a government-run national health care system often urge the United States to learn from the experience of other countries and they are right. But those lessons may not be exactly what the political left expects. For example:

• Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.
• Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

In France, for example, co-payments run between 10 and 40 percent, and physicians can balance bill over and above government reimbursement rates, something not allowed in the U.S. Medicare program. On average, French patients pay roughly as much out of pocket as do Americans. The Swiss government pays a smaller percentage of health care spending than does the U.S.

• Rising health care spending is not a uniquely American phenomenon. While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, it is often because they begin with a lower base of expenditures. But their costs are still rising, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and/or benefit cuts. In 2004, the last year for which data is available, the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States’ 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.
• While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.

Looking at other countries and their experiences, then, can provide guidance to Americans as we debate how to reform our health care system. In most cases, national health care systems have successfully expanded insurance coverage to the vast majority, if not quite all, of the population.

But they have not solved the universal and seemingly irresistible problem of rising health care costs. In many cases, attempts to control costs through governmental fiat have led to problems with access to care, either delays in receiving care or outright rationing.

In wrestling with this dilemma, many countries are loosening government controls and injecting market mechanisms, particularly cost-sharing by patients, market pricing of goods and services, and increased competition among insurers and providers. As Pat Cox, former president of the European Parliament, put it in a report to the European Commission, we should start to explore the power of the market as a way of achieving much better value for money?

Moreover, the growth of the government share of health care spending, which had increased steadily from the end of World War II until the mid-1980s, has stopped, and in many countries the private share has begun to increase, in some cases substantially. There is even evidence of a growing shift from public to private provision of health care.

If the trend in the U.S. over the last several years has been toward more of a European-style system, the trend in Europe is toward a system that looks more like the U.S.

Therefore, if there is a lesson which U.S. policymakers can take from national health care systems around the world, it is not to follow the road to government-run national health care, but to increase consumer incentives and control.

[ActionfigureJoe]

22 hours ago, f7ben said:

On average , every 1st world country with UHC has a better health care system than the US.....do I need to get out the crayons for your retarded ass???

Heres a clue , for those in the US that arent 1%er's or lucky enough to have cadillac insurance plans......the HC in the US aint so hot

get ready for a long cut and paste that you give up reading after the first convoluted paragraph.