Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-24-2010, 02:24 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

I would also challenge you on a couple of points:

First, that single - payer is disconnected from the regulatory enviroment. Rather, single - payer is the ultimate regulation of the health care delivery system. It removes the free market almost completely from the equation, and fully regulates the delivery of care in the market: who can deliver care, under what circumstances the care can be delivered, the timing of the delivery of care, and the cost of delivery.

Second, that PPACA is "little more that re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. PPACA does little in the near term to impact the delivery of health care. It gets at cost in a rather hopeful way - that requiring individuals to purchase health care will increase improve overall funding by increasing the amount of incoming premium dollars. I'd suggest that there are still plenty of holes in the funding scenario that could likely result in further - you guessed it - regulatory intervention to plug the holes.

PPACA utlimtely could change how most poeple in this country buy health insurance. In the extreme, it could signficantly reduce the number of individuals who buy health insurance in the group market from an employer. On its face, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I've often said that if I were King for a day, I'd outlaw employer sponsored group health insurance. (I might even go so far as to outlaw health insurance, but that's a whole differnent thread). It creates an uneven playing field where the largest groups can puchase coverage more economically than smaller groups, and subjects small groups to more unpredictable year over year health insurance premium cost increases. PPACA doesn't necessarily solve this. It does, however, create a powerful incentive for employers - and I'd suggest in partcilular smaller employers - to get out of providing group health insurance coverage. This could result in dramatic change in how the health insurance market, and ultimately the health care delivery system, might operate.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-24-2010, 02:47 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
[QUOTE=noonereal;37290]
Overall I'd say your post was a bunch of BS.
QUOTE]

Why, thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:08 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

I would also challenge you on a couple of points:

First, that single - payer is disconnected from the regulatory enviroment. Rather, single - payer is the ultimate regulation of the health care delivery system. It removes the free market almost completely from the equation, and fully regulates the delivery of care in the market: who can deliver care, under what circumstances the care can be delivered, the timing of the delivery of care, and the cost of delivery.

Second, that PPACA is "little more that re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. PPACA does little in the near term to impact the delivery of health care. It gets at cost in a rather hopeful way - that requiring individuals to purchase health care will increase improve overall funding by increasing the amount of incoming premium dollars. I'd suggest that there are still plenty of holes in the funding scenario that could likely result in further - you guessed it - regulatory intervention to plug the holes.

PPACA utlimtely could change how most poeple in this country buy health insurance. In the extreme, it could signficantly reduce the number of individuals who buy health insurance in the group market from an employer. On its face, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I've often said that if I were King for a day, I'd outlaw employer sponsored group health insurance. (I might even go so far as to outlaw health insurance, but that's a whole differnent thread). It creates an uneven playing field where the largest groups can puchase coverage more economically than smaller groups, and subjects small groups to more unpredictable year over year health insurance premium cost increases. PPACA doesn't necessarily solve this. It does, however, create a powerful incentive for employers - and I'd suggest in partcilular smaller employers - to get out of providing group health insurance coverage. This could result in dramatic change in how the health insurance market, and ultimately the health care delivery system, might operate.
the best insurance in the US today is Medicare, a single payer system.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:10 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
[QUOTE=whell;37292]
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
Overall I'd say your post was a bunch of Hooey.
QUOTE]

Why, thank you.
great reply, thanks (all thoese questions and you only decide to comment on this?)

btw I meant to put Hooey, your post sounded like a bunch of hooey but I was not sure how to spell it.

Last edited by noonereal; 08-24-2010 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:16 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
Of course I am not in the industry. In fact once I became ill I lost all medical coverage so maybe I am unaware of the great healthcare industry.
It can be extremely difficult to maintain objectvity in a discussion about the broad topic of health care. It can be a very personal, emotional topic for many. However, if there is any hope at arriving at a well conceived set of solutions about the issues in the health care system, objectivity has to be the starting point for the discussion.

The "health care issue" is tremendously complex. Folks tend to lump health care delivery together with health insurance and view it all as one common problem. They are very different issues, and both would have their own unique set of solutions.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:36 PM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
What an absolute load of crap. The Canadian system is not now, never was known as "Medicare" the authors appear to be totally confused, they must have gotten their information from Grassley and Hatch.

The Single Payer system is a health insurance system with a single insurer. Like any other insurance company they tell you what they will pay for and what they will not pay for. Even doctors in Canada get confused and at one point a group of doctors in Alberta asked the system to buy them an MRI machine. The response was that if they thought they could profitably operate such a machine they were perfectly free to buy one. Does Aetna buy MRI machines?

I could recount experiences of my family still in Canada but it probably would be a waste of time. I will simply suggest that you try the WHO site and see where Canadians stand vis-a-vis Americans. I believe you will find they live longer, have fewer strokes or heart attacks and the infant mortality rate is lower. BTW no Canadian was ever forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses.

If anyone there is considering abandoning single payer for a system like ours it would have to be that barking idiot Harper.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:53 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander View Post
What an absolute load of crap. The Canadian system is not now, never was known as "Medicare" the authors appear to be totally confused, they must have gotten their information from Grassley and Hatch.
Dang. Grassley and Hatch are everywhere. They've even infiltrated Health Canada's web page, who seem to acknowledge the "medicare" reference.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index-eng.php
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:54 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
It can be extremely difficult to maintain objectvity in a discussion about the broad topic of health care. It can be a very personal, emotional topic for many. However, if there is any hope at arriving at a well conceived set of solutions about the issues in the health care system, objectivity has to be the starting point for the discussion.

The "health care issue" is tremendously complex. Folks tend to lump health care delivery together with health insurance and view it all as one common problem. They are very different issues, and both would have their own unique set of solutions.
so you have disqualified me from discussion because I am ill?

That is handy.

Was I disqualified when I paid over $15,000 a year for what amounted to catastrophic insurance for my daughter and I also?
You who has a vested interest in healthcare can discuss it objectively?

what a crock, a real Palin moment.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:55 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander View Post
I believe you will find they live longer, have fewer strokes or heart attacks and the infant mortality rate is lower. BTW no Canadian was ever forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses.
If you read the article on the link that I posted, you'd see that these facts are acknowledged in the article as well. It also provides reasons why this might be the case: reasons that are disconnected from the delivery of health care in Canada.

Last edited by whell; 08-24-2010 at 03:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-24-2010, 03:57 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
so you have disqualified me from discussion because I am ill?

That is handy.

Was I disqualified when I paid over $15,000 a year for what amounted to catastrophic insurance for my daughter and I also?
You who has a vested interest in healthcare can discuss it objectively?

what a crock, a real Palin moment.
At what point did I "disqualify" you? I acknowledged that individuals bring their own experiences to the discussion which generate emotional responses. I simply suggested that emotionalism doesn't necessarily lead to constructive solutions.

Reading my posts rather than reacting to what you think my "agenda" might be could lead to a more productive discussion.

Last edited by whell; 08-24-2010 at 04:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.