Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 925 +-   US House Democrats Unveil a Health Care Plan on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:24PM

Posted by kdawson on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:24PM
from the world's-largest-muddle dept.
democrats
government
medicine
usa
politics
gollum123 sends in this piece from a political blog in the NY Times. Here is the text of the bill in question (PDF). "House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama's call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward [an] 852-page draft bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance, force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them, and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers — a move that Republicans will bitterly oppose. ... But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost, even as they pledged to pay for it by cutting Medicare spending and imposing new, unspecified taxes. The three chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a weeks-long legislative endeavor that they said would dominate Congress for the summer and ultimately involve the full panorama of stakeholders in the health care industry, which accounts for about one-sixth of the nation's economy. ... House Republicans, who have had no involvement in the development of the health legislation so far, quickly denounced the Democrats' proposal as a thinly disguised plan for an eventual government takeover of the health care system. ... The House Democrats' plan is one of three distinct efforts underway on Capitol Hill to draft the health overhaul legislation. In the Senate, both the Finance Committee and the health committee have separate bills in the works, and in recent days those efforts seem to have stumbled."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alethes (533985) on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:30PM (#28404909)

    "But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost..."

    I'm not sure the politicians care how much it's going to cost since it's not their money.

    • Re:Cost (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hamanu (23005) on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:34PM (#28404947) Homepage

      Of COURSE they don't know how much a voluntary insurance plan is going to cost, since they can't FORCE you to sign up for it! Blue Cross doesn't know how much their plan costs in advance either.

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:33PM (#28404935)

    Will this bill stop the pre existing condition BS? Let you buy any plan that you want? UN tie it from your job?

    How about having a Bankruptcy that is just for Health stuff and does not show up on any back round check?

    Not let people ask about you medial history before offering your a job?

    Make it so you can not be dropped by a insurance provider.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:05PM (#28405253)

        If anyone had any questions why the US health care 'system' continues to be a complete joke compared to the rest of the Western World just read this single post from this fucked in the head wacko.

        Miserable little fucks screaming about people getting a free ride while wasting their own 'precious' money on more than 50 percent extra on health care costs in the US compared to every other modern aka 'Socialized' health care system.

        Democracy's fatal flaw. Too many people are just fucking stupid like jstork.

          • by realnrh (1298639) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:54PM (#28405759) Journal
            This is the kind of right-wing idiocy that has left the Republican party in its current state. Democratic areas do have more access to abortion clinics as it stands now, and yet the demographics that associate with Democrats are growing faster than the demographics that associate with Republicans. Democrats, far from sobbing and calling it 'genocide,' actively seek to expand access to these clinics on the basis that government should not be intervening in a woman's personal medical decisions. The vast majority of pregnancies that become naturally viable are not terminated; most abortions are for cases where the fetus would not survive for one reason or another (including that the mother might not survive delivery). Most of the rest are because the prospective parent is not ready or able to provide a stable family life, but many do go on later in life to have a child when they are better able to provide for one with a decent quality of life. Republicans have a stupid idea that Democrats 'want' to have abortions. Democrats want to make it an option for people who, for whatever reason, need one.
        • by mdmkolbe (944892) on Saturday June 20 2009, @10:36PM (#28407317)

          Insurance (of any kind) is an exchange where you pay a higher average (i.e. expected value) in exchange for a smaller variability in the outcome (statistical variance or standard deviation).

          For example, suppose that each year one out of ten people one will incur a $10000 medical expense while the others incur no expense. The average cost is $1000, but there is a wide variability ($0-$10000).

          Now suppose an insurance company charges $1100. If you take the insurance your average costs would be $100 higher. However, you have also eliminated variability. You no longer have to worry about being surprised by a $10000 bill. Instead you know exactly how much you will have to pay each year.

          For things that have only a small amount of variability (e.g. utilities), insurance does not make sense. However, for things (e.g. house burning down) where there is a small but very real chance (e.g. 1 in 10000) of a very high cost (e.g. $100,000), insurance decreases the risk of financial ruin in case you happen to be the unlucky 1 in 10000.

  • by TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:35PM (#28404959)
    It seems obvious from this look into the early stage of a house bill that 'democrats' and 'republicans' are acting as either side of a polar debate, one proposing knowing it's plan leans far too far one way, confident that the other side will try as hard as possible the other way, reaching a stalemate.

    it's kinda like the game my brother and I would play as children splitting a piece of cake , one cuts - the other chooses.

    Of course, what happens when there is more then two ways to look at a problem, i don't know.
    • by theodicey (662941) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:42PM (#28405635)

      Health care isn't going to be Democrats negotiating with Republicans. I doubt the Republicans are going to contribute anything constructive to health reform, and so far they haven't put anything useful on the table. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

      The current system is great for Republican politicians -- lots of fundraising to be done among rich healthcare CEOs and rich doctors, lots of noble rhetoric about the glories of the free market, the risks of "socialism" and sober warnings about the risks of change (...to the system that every other developed country in the world currently has).

      Also, if the government started providing health care as good as the VA or Medicaid, people might realize that the government can be more competent than the market (again, as it is in every other country) and Republicans would be forced to change. Instead, I expect they will try to scuttle the bill and leave us with the status quo, the world's most inefficient health care system by a factor of 2.

      It'll be a negotiation like you say, but between Democrats and right-wing/corporate Democrats, or between the more populist Democrats in the House and richer corporate Democrats in the Senate.

  • Is that the House Democrats are essentially following the blueprint for Healthcare provided by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachussetts. So far, the Massachusetts model has pretty much worked, in that, they did reduce the number of uninsured significantly. However, costs for the state provided side of the plan have come in way more than anyone either promised or expected. Quite frankly, the expansion of the health insurance pool did not increase the economies of scale and drive down costs for everyone. Now everyone just has procedures that they cannot afford done.

    The other irony is that Obama's said to be considering the McCain plan's idea of taxing health care benefits and requiring employers to purchase it.

      • by Manchot (847225) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:57PM (#28405787)
        But there's also a flip side to this: people who are uninsured or underinsured don't want to spend a lot of money on a doctor's visit, so they neglect conditions that are easy to treat early on and end up having to go to the ER when the condition becomes more serious. Preventative medicine is a major cost saver.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:48PM (#28405083)

    The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think access to health care is a right or do you think that it is just another commodity to be bought and sold. If you say health care is a right then you have to be willing to pay for everyone to have it, it will be expensive, very expensive. If you think it's a commodity then you need to admit that poor people don't deserve to see doctors, or deserve a substantially lower quality of care from understaffed and overwhelmed free clinics.

    I happen to think health care is something society needs to provide to everyone equally. I know where the money can come from without raising taxes too. I have my eye set on the bloated defense budget. Cut the military fully in half (by dollars spent) and we'd still have the best armed forces in the world for DEFENSE of the nation and we'd have the money to take care of every sick and injured man woman and child.

    There are other things we can do to reduce costs as well such as approve the use of drugs that are already available in Europe and Canada and have been proven safe, and reform the liability insurance system.

  • Do not be afraid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:08PM (#28405273) Homepage Journal
    The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.

    First, it appears to requires universal coverage. This is good. I remember a long time ago when universal coverage was not the norm for automobiles. All these irresponsible people would drive around, damage other peoples property, and then not pay. What was more they often continued to damage other peoples property with little consequence. This meant that those who were responsible had to pay higher premiums. Now everyone has to have proof of financial responsibility. One consequence of this is that I can get coverage against the irresponsible motorist for very little money. The benefit of health care should be similar. No more irresponsible people going to the hospital without health insurance. This should mean that those of us who actually pay for medical treatment, instead of expecting others to cover the bills,

    Second, there will be a public option. Auto insurance in many states has the same option. Most of us do not use the public option. Most of us still pay private firms to carry our insurance. The public option is used by those those who cannot or chooses not to afford private insurance. Sure this public option costs money, but not nearly as much as having some irresponsible asshole crash into your house in his SUV, then discovering he has no insurance or assets because all his or her income went to pay the note of the truck. Every uninsured person costs us money. The public option will insure that hospitals and doctors get some money for every patient, so they do not have to gouge the rest of us.

    Third, and this is what I hope, that they reform payments and set standards for care. For instance, it make no sense to pay 80% of a standard cost for a procedure, when in most cases doctors charge double the standard costs. Pay 100% of the standard cost, and don't worry about co-pays. The co-pay is built in with real and opportunity costs. Likewise, set minimum standard for diagnostics. Hospitals are spending money on proton accelerators rather than prene care. We can live without proton accelerators and other machines that go beep. What we need is care.

    And this is what I think many people are afraid of. That medicine is going to go back to giving care, rather than huge returns on investments for the HMO or funding for lavish and extravagant building and equipment that rich people can then put their name on because they paid half. Or, as mentioned, we might be concerned that in the US we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba or Hungary, the worst in the developed world.

  • by SnarfQuest (469614) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:22PM (#28405419)

    Let's require that whatever bill they propose, that all of the US government, especially congress & house, have to operate under that bill for one year before it can be forced on the rest of us. Whatever plan they currently have is gone. They are not allowed to work outside of their proposed system. They have to use only what their bill contains, and the funding has to come as a deduction (tax) out of their salaries. The money used to provide their health care services must come from whatever they paid in, and if (when) it runs out, nobody gets any more services until more funding is available. Also, any government employee who goes outside the system must declare it on some specified national forum, so we can know about its deficiencies before it takes effect on the rest of us.

    This will show us if it is a viable plan, and that it is has enough money coming in so that extra funding is not hidden in additional taxes. Let's see how they like their own plan before we're forced into another stupid plan.

  • by plopez (54068) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:51PM (#28405735)

    Here are the real differences between a single payer public health care provider plan and the hodgepodge private health care/insurance system we have now:

    1) under a public plan, your health care is decided by a government bureaucrat sitting in a government office. While in a private system, you health care is decided by corporate bureaucrat sitting in a corporate office.

    2) under a government plan you, or your employer would send hundreds of dollars in tax money each month to the health a agency to cover care. Under private plans, you or your employer must send hundreds of dollars each month to insurance companies each month to get coverage.

    3) Under a government plan you a guaranteed coverage. You are not under private plans.

    4) Under a government plans you are essentially covered for life. Under private plans you are limited in the number of claims you can make.

    5) From what I have seen, government plans overseas control costs by focusing on preventative care and reward doctors who get patients to quit smoking and lose weight for example. Insurance companies in the us drop patients and increase deductibles.

    6) Under a government plan, you and your doctor would have to fill out government paperwork to get benefits paid. Under the private system, each insurance company has it's own form to fill out which requires staff, meaning non-medical overhead, to proper fill out and file the forms in the proper manner.

    There, those are are the real differences.

    Basically, there are some problems the private sector is poorly equipped to solve. Medical care is one of them. Medical care is less of a free market choice and should be thought of more as an essential public utility. Market forces do not work very well do to the complexity of medical care and the urgency of catastrophic cases making comparison shopping impossible.

  • My COBRA coverage got pulled at about the 1/2 point because my old company was small and both of the spouses had coverage, so at the annual renew time, they just stopped offering health.

    After talking with an Insurance rep that I have used for company insurance at a few places, it became clear that my family and I would NEVER get personal health insurance. Currently, I suffer from chronic foot pain (for the past 6 years), my oldest son suffers from depression and bi-polar disorder (for the past 4 years), and my wife gets migraines (from childhood). You can see why an insurance company would not want to touch us, but we still need insurance.

    As my COBRA ran out my agent tried to get us on a temporary plan. We know that if we claim the meds that my son and I require, $2,000 to $3000 a month, we will also not be allowed to re-up the temp plan. We decided that we would not claim any of the chronic things that we have to deal with so that we have the plan if we have a major issue, but once we do, we no for sure that we will not be allowed to re-up.

    For the temp plan we went with a carrier that haven't been covered by for over 12 years. But we were denied coverage by this carrier because they had on record that...

        1) My wife had been treated for headaches.
        2) One of my 2 sons had been treated for a sore throat.

    OVER10 YEARS AGO!!

    Those 2 reasons were all that it took to deny even temporary coverage.

    We had to find a carrier that had never insured me and my family before just to get temp insurance.

    We are still looking for a permanent option, but as we do our savings are being drained rapidly as we try and cover our ongoing issues. We need to minimize claims to preserve our temp insurance in case of a major issue. Because of that none of us are getting any ongoing treatment, so no one is getting any better. Were stuck with little chance at improving medically, and at this point we have not found an insurer who will offer us insurance at any price.

    If you have now, or have ever had anything more that a minor medical issue, your chance of getting coverage as an individual are effectively 0%

    I have been looking for work for 2 years, sending out, and following up on at least a dozen job openings ever month (12 is my self imposed min). While the economy is bad I have no idea if I will be able to get a job, and while I am in this catch 22 I am spending more and more of my time trying to find coverage.

    In the mean time, I have one of my cars for sale, family jewelry is listed, and while our house is not under water, real estate is not exactly booming either.

    I dunno. Does my government really want me to be broke, unemployed, and perhaps homeless, before I can get health care for my family?

    Or can they come up with some way for people to purchase coverage, to allow them to get healthy, before they loose everything?

    • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekboy642 (799087) on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:38PM (#28404999) Journal

      Canada has "socialized medicine" and they spend 10% of their GDP funding it. The USA has a tangled hodgepodge of insurance companies that deny valid claims, overpay their CEOs, and refuse any coverage of any pre-existing conditions, and they spend 15% of their GDP funding it, while also bankrupting countless families without enough insurance. Great Britain has the National Health Service, and they spend 7.5% of GDP funding it.

      Tell me how the US can't do better than Canada and England. No really, how could we suck badly enough to be worse than Canada at national health care?

      • which is private providers who are paid by the Canadian government out of a health tax. If the United States had a single payer system we could save $350 billion a year [youtube.com]. It would be a huge boost for small companies.
      • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mcwop (31034) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:32PM (#28405527) Homepage
        Singapore uses medical savings accounts and spends less than 5% of GDP. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores_heal.html [econlib.org]
      • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Manchot (847225) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:35PM (#28405571)

        Bad news: your 15% figure is out of date. We're now spending 17% of our GDP on health care, and if the trend of the 2000s continues, we'll be at 30% by 2020.

        Unfortunately, the Republicans will oppose any type of health care legislation, because the truth is that they don't think anything's wrong. Most won't admit it, or will make the wholly unsubstantiated claim that malpractice insurance is the only thing wrong with our system. This is despite the fact that all estimates put tort at least than 0.5% of our health spending. Of course, while the effects of 'defensive medicine' are tougher to estimate, there's fortunately empirical proof showing that it makes no difference. Texas has the strictest malpractice tort limits in the country (you can get at most $250k, even in cases of gross negligence causing permanent disability or death), causing malpractice claims to plummet, yet their health spending increases have continued to outpace the rest of the country in the six years since it was passed. So much, in fact, that Texas now spends more than any other state for decidedly mediocre results. Essentially, it's a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole.

        There was a great article [newyorker.com] in the New Yorker a few weeks ago wherein a reporter visited McAllen, Texas, home of the largest health care spending in the world. What he found was a perfect example of what we see across the country: when doctors treat their practice as a revenue generator, costs go way up, and quality actually suffers. The doctors think that they're doing their best for their patients, but they subconsciously make more referrals when it brings in money. It's long, but it's definitely worth the read.

          • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Manchot (847225) on Saturday June 20 2009, @07:19PM (#28405979)
            The 0.5% figure already includes* the cost of malpractice insurance: as you noted, the actual malpractice damages are even less. Besides, as I already pointed out, Texas has practically eliminated malpractice suits with their bogus tort laws, and yet their costs are climbing faster than anyone's. I'm just speculating, but I wonder if the Texas tort law hasn't created a perverse incentive. Namely, the doctors that are moving there to take advantage of the malpractice situation are the ones more concerned about money than patients; i.e., the type of doctor driving the cost of care up. At the same time, a doctor could accidentally cut off your genitals in Texas, for which you could get at most $250k. (Yes, this just happened to someone, though luckily not in Texas.)

            * Anderson, Gerard F., Peter S. Hussey, Bianca K. Frogner, and Hugh R. Waters. "Health Spending In The United States And The Rest Of The Industrialized World." Health Aff 24, no. 4 (July 1, 2005): 903-914.
      • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

        by j. andrew rogers (774820) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:40PM (#28405617) Homepage

        Tell me how the US can't do better than Canada and England.

        Define "better". According to a recent Lancet Oncology study (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html [telegraph.co.uk]) for males the average cancer survival rate in the UK is 44.8%. Compare to 66.3% in the USA for the same period. The US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world, and by a pretty large margin. That has to be worth something in your metrics of "better". I do not go to the doctor for social justice, I go to the doctor to get medical problems, say cancer and cardiovascular disease, fixed. The US is tops for fixing medical problems even if the system surrounding that medicine is a wreck.

        Discard all the policy issues and ask yourself one simple question: what country will give me the best average statistical odds of having my condition cured/fixed? The US looks very, very good by that metric, and the reason people go to the doctor is to get cures. The medical system may be a wreck, but that is a semi-separate issue and I would be reluctant to throw away stellar medical outcomes as the price for cleaning up a broken system.

        One of the more interesting statistical anomalies is that if it was not for the extremely high death rates due to accidents (e.g. vehicular) and homicides, Americans would have the longest lifespans in the industrialized world instead of average ones (better medical outcomes offset high non-disease death rates). As is amusingly observed in health outcome statistics, the only demographic group that lives longer than Japanese women are Japanese women that live in the US. It is a relevant observation in this discussion, many people here are far too eager to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

        • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:03PM (#28405221)

          I am a 45 year old Canadian and no one has EVER told what doctor I may/may not see.
          It has never been mentioned or hinted at by any of the doctors I have seen or by any government bureauocrat.

          I call B.S. on your claim.

          • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Valdrax (32670) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:24PM (#28405451)

            And if you can't afford it, you can take yourself a medical vacation to a country where you can. The important thing is that, here, we don't ration our healthcare.

            Because if you can't afford healthcare, taking a flight to foreign country and taking days or weeks off your job is obviously within your means! (And I'll bet this is a *great* solution for getting preventative care too!)

            Oh, crazy right wingers... One wonders if you ever even talked to someone who is a member of the working poor.

        • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:39PM (#28405607)

          The reason pills are cheaper in countries with socialized healthcare systems is that that the power is in the hands of the very large single buyer. If a pharma wants to sell a drug in significant numbers in Britain they have to negotiate an acceptable price with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't buy, then they'll sell very few of the pills in Britain.

          In America, there are countless buyers. Thus a single buyer has little price negotiation leverage.

          The way to reduce health care costs is to find waste in the system and eliminate them through process improvement. Everything else is a shell game.

          That's easy. Health company profits are the elephantine waste in the system. The idea of charging "what the market will bear" rather than the lowest possible.

          It's astounding to me that right wing Americans object to the governent taking over healthcare on cost grounds when ALL the evidence from other countries is that no one else pays as much for their healthcare than Americans do currently. You HAVE the most expensive system already, you have nothing to fear on cost grounds from learning lessons from the rest of the world.

            • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by vux984 (928602) on Sunday June 21 2009, @12:05AM (#28407895)

              Yes, but the reason that health care costs are so high in America is that we have the best quality of health care in the world.

              You are right, King Hussein of Jordan will come to America for surgery, because we have facilities that offer among the best available care in the world, and they will be happy to take care of King Hussein.

              But to say the country has the "best quality of health care" is extremely misleading; that high quality health care may be =offered= in America, but most actual American's don't actually get it when they need it.

              What exactly is the value of having high quality health care that you can't actually use?

              America still produces fine crafted hardwood furniture too. But most people's homes are furnished with ikea and other particle board and plastic shit. The fact that high quality furniture is available in the country doesn't mean simply being in the country will get you some. Ditto with health care.

              Now, I'm not railing against the existance of private health care. If King Hussein wants surgery, he should be able to get it, and there's no reason it shouldn't be in America. But so what? We should still have socialized care too.

              Why exactly should serving the worlds rich and famous the best care in the world mean that half the country has no health care at all?

        • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dunkelfalke (91624) <dunkelfalkeNO@SPAMspeznas.de> on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:49PM (#28405707) Homepage

          The problem with a state run insurance plan is that that the state has never made anything more efficient.

          Wrong. When German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) was still state owned, the trains were always on time, there were many more connections, the fares were lower and easier to understand and the trains and tracks were better in shape.

          Now Deutsche Bahn is a private company. Trains run notoriously late (often because the trains are damaged or the tracks are in the sore need of repair), many connections are inoperative, the prices soar.

          I never have seen a high speed train being evacuated in the middle of nowhere because of some motor damage in the early nineties. I had to live through it twice last year.

        • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by artor3 (1344997) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:54PM (#28405757)

          Both offer lower quality service, with rationing, and less access to innovative procedures. The problem with a state run insurance plan is that that the state has never made anything more efficient.

          Bullshit. We have lower life expectancy than they do in Canada, England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and virtually any other first world nation you care to name. We have higher infant mortality than any of those nations. And yet, we're paying twice as much.

          Governments all over the world are taking much better care of their citizens than we are, and are doing it for less money. Do you really believe that we can't do the same? Do you really think that we're just worse than them?

          • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

            by OakDragon (885217) on Saturday June 20 2009, @09:25PM (#28406887) Journal

            The infant mortality statistics are skewed for various reasons. They have to do with what we report as a "live birth" vs. what other nations report.

            For example, in Canada, a premature baby that is delivered, and then dies, that weighs less than a half a kilogram is not counted against the live birth count.

            There is also the matter of timing. In Hong Kong and Japan, a baby that dies in the first 24 hours of life is not counted against the live births. They consider it a miscarriage. In France, Belgium, and many other European countries, babies born before 26 weeks of gestation, and then die, are not counted as deaths.

            In Switzerland, a baby that perishes that is also less than 30 cm in length is not counted.

            Needless to say (for the illustration of my point), the U.S. does count these as live births, and the deaths in such cases count toward the relatively higher infant mortality rate. In the types of cases above, the chances of infant survival are sketchy at best. Thus, the disparity in infant mortality rates.

        • Re:Great quote... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Manchot (847225) on Saturday June 20 2009, @07:52PM (#28406273)
          I posted something similar to this below, but to put it mildly, your assertion that malpractice litigation/insurance and "defensive medicine" are driving up costs simply isn't supported by the data. All the best estimates for the actual litigation and insurance put it at about 0.5% of our total costs.* As for defensive medicine, while that is undoubtedly more difficult to quantify, 22 states have some form of malpractice cap, so we can see how well medical costs and quality correlate to those caps. Unfortunately, while the numbers of doctors in those state varies in a statistically significant way, neither the quality nor the costs do. In fact, Texas spends more money than any other state, despite their ridiculously strict $250k caps. (You could literally be wrongly castrated by a doctor in Texas and get no more than $250k.) Even worse, their costs are going up faster than any other state.

          * Anderson, Gerard F., Peter S. Hussey, Bianca K. Frogner, and Hugh R. Waters. "Health Spending In The United States And The Rest Of The Industrialized World." Health Aff 24, no. 4 (July 1, 2005): 903-914.
        • Even the suggestion, let alone reality, of a poor minimum wage worker or homeless person getting access to universal health care is abhorrent. That's just not how things are supposed to work. Poor people are supposed to be...poor.

          If you really think most people, conservative or otherwise, actually hate people who are poor, you've been completely brainwashed.

          It's the liberal equivilent of calling everyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:44PM (#28405039)

      I ain't registering for a goddamn thing

      .

      In the glorious and free country of the United States a citizen's decision to register for government-mandated healthcare is absolutely and completely voluntary.

      Being forced to pay for those that do register, however, is another story.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:10PM (#28405303)

          Any time an unpopular social program is established, the government tries to sell it under "special" tax provisions, e.g. only those that enroll have to pay.

          Once the issue is mostly forgotten, the program inevitably merges with general government spending and starts drawing money from the general tax pool (e.g. your and my tax dollars).

          This ALWAYS is going to happen for a simple reason: if everyone who wanted to enroll in the program could afford to pay for it, there would not be a need for a program in the first place. The sole reason for it to exist is to get those who don't use it to pay for those that do (that is the concept of welfare).

          NEVER vote for a program on the basis of it having "special" tax provisions such as pay-as-you-enroll. If you are not willing to accept a government program under the understanding that it will be paid for with general tax dollar's, don't vote for it at all, since that is inevitably what is going to happen after a while.

                  • by realnrh (1298639) on Saturday June 20 2009, @09:37PM (#28406957) Journal
                    It doesn't need to have 'nothing ever wrong with it.' What it needs is to have a distinct improvement over the alternative. The argument is that the set of problems inherent in a national health care system is preferable to the set of problems inherent in the current mess. If a public/private mix works best, great, go with that. But rejecting the premise that a national plan could be better due to ideological rejection of government programs is no way to make policy.
                  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Saturday June 20 2009, @08:51PM (#28406677) Homepage

                    Now ... repeat after me ... correlation does not equal causation.

                    I don't believe I said it did. However, if you're going to complain about how awful Canada's national health plan is, you had better deal with the fact that, awful health plan or no, they live two years longer than Americans do. That "rotten" health plan, which costs on the average about half what Americans pay for health care, doesn't seem to be producing worse results.

              • by realnrh (1298639) on Saturday June 20 2009, @07:03PM (#28405829) Journal
                Let's test the hypothesis that Social Security is popular. You would expect, therefore, that when the President of the United States proposes making adjustments to it, this would be loudly and vigorously denounced. Lo and behold, this is what happened. Yes, Social Security is very popular in the US, and only small minorities (yes, including many Libertarians) want to do away with it.
              • by realnrh (1298639) on Saturday June 20 2009, @07:05PM (#28405863) Journal
                Right, we have forty-seven million healthy, middle-aged, rich people who are the ones not getting insurance. Working poor who, for example, don't take their kids to see the doctor until they've gotten seriously, seriously ill and in need of expensive publicly-paid treatment when cheap preventative care would have nipped the issue in the bud if they could afford it... why, they just don't want health care!
    • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XopherMV (575514) * on Saturday June 20 2009, @05:47PM (#28405073) Journal
      Seriously. I can't understand why anyone would expect a decent economic discussion on a semi-technical website full of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, Ron Paul anti-government Libertarians, and other zealots who interpret forceful opinion as actual fact.

      Economics IS a difficult subject to understand, let alone interpret correctly. Even professional economists who do nothing but study the economy often get things wrong. Yet, everyone talks about the economy as if they are the expert and they actually know what's going on, even if they've had zero education on the subject.
      • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stonewallred (1465497) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:01PM (#28405203)
        Anti-government I am. Not an economist by far. But even a fucking moron can see this tripe is designed with the insurance companies profits in mind. Screw the BS. Go ahead and kick the private insurance companies to the side and make it truly government supplied health care. Single ayer with no private companies taking a cut from the pie. There will be waste and corruption no matter what, but leaving private companies involved will double waste, corruption and cost at the bare minimum.
        • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:15PM (#28405357) Journal
          It's a huge pity, really. We in the US are far better at being anti- or pro- state than we are at being anti- or pro- free market.

          Thus, we get grotesque situations where, in order to avoid charges of "socialism" government functions are essentially "laundered" through private sector intermediaries that take their big fat cut and, all too often, deliver seriously subpar results. We would be much better off if we abandoned that charade and, instead, let the state attend to state functions, the private sector attend to private sector functions, and avoided the incestuous interrelations of the two.
          • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Saturday June 20 2009, @06:43PM (#28405637)

            It's a huge pity, really. We in the US are far better at being anti- or pro- state than we are at being anti- or pro- free market.

            Thus, we get grotesque situations where, in order to avoid charges of "socialism"...

            Most US Americans seem to have no clue at all about what socialism or for that matter communism actually is. Every time they start throwing those words around on Fox News, accusing their various political opponents of being "socialists", it makes me laugh.

                • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by iamacat (583406) on Sunday June 21 2009, @02:01AM (#28408509)

                  If I am sick, how is that your problem, and what right do I have to force you to pay for my doctor's bills so that I can get well?

                  You don't. However, most people do not know in advance if they will someday require a million dollar medical treatment. Therefore, it is to their advantage to pay a flat fee into a huge risk-amortization pool managed by US government. To avoid ethical questions about government's use of force, let people opt out of the pool and stop paying any related taxes. However, they will then have to rely on their own private hospitals for treatments, even in emergency. And organ donations made to public system will not be available for private transplants. Let them see if resources of 10 million mega-rich people can buy more MRI machines than resources of 300 million not-so-rich people. And rejoining the pool will not be easy/cheap as it's not fiscally sound to let people join the insurance pool only when they get sick.

                  So hard-core libertarians get to die on the road after a car accident, knowing that nobody forced them to pay taxes for a public ambulance service. And the rest of us, who think that government services are for emergencies such as fire, disaster relief or cancer and private sector is for extras like iPods, dining out or plastic surgery, get to have some peace of mind.

          • "I disagree only partially here. If you kick out private insurance entirely then you get some of the horror stories Canada grapples with. "

            Oh please. I don't know what you've heard but it's probably on the order of the things we hear about the states, that is, if you walk any street at night you'll be mugged there.

            I've in the states for a decade and the rest in Canada. There simply is no comparison. It's overpriced lunacy down there, the embarrasment of the world.

            I'm sure you can find people that feel hard done by by the Canadian system. And for each of those there are a plethora of problems with the American system. It's so bad poeple makes movies about it.

            Last year in the US the health sector spent $3.4 Billion lobbying, the only sector that spent more was the finance sector. That's 5X than defense lobbyists. They don't want to kill the gooose that lays the golden eggs.

            Cite: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c [opensecrets.org]

      • It's so much more complicated than that. It's a debate where two sides can argue opposite points, and both be absolutely correct. Here is an article that addresses one side of it [wsj.com]:

        Short answer: there's no easy fix. Medical costs are rising for several reasons:

        * Rising costs and quality of medical care (30 years ago there were no MRIs, hip replacements).
        * Corrupt doctors, ordering tests because they are profitable (read the article, it goes into great detail on that point)
        * Corrupt insurance agencies (sometimes charging 30% overhead)
        * Incompetent government (a point which you outlined)
        * Clueless patients wanting every possible test (I can't blame them for this, it's not like we have medical degrees) and not taking care of themselves (Safeway for example managed to reduce health insurance costs by 40% or so by encouraging their employees to take care of themselves)
        * Oh yes, and how can any such list be incomplete without including pharmaceutical companies and medical lobbies? Many problems there.

        I'm sure I'm missing some. The good news is with all these problems, there is lots of room for improvement. The bad news is that these problems exist, and the path to fixing them isn't entirely clear. I am not sure that I favor this bill, but I think it is good we are having a debate about it. We should have had this debate 10, 20, or 40 years ago.
/* * Buddy system. Hairy. You really aren't expected to understand this * */ -- From /usr/src/linux/mm/page_alloc.cA