Another Thread To Debate USA National Health Care In

[Peter Parka]

Obama's party loses Kennedy seat
Republican Scott Brown has won a shock victory in the race for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts left vacant by Democrat Edward Kennedy's death.
The result is a huge blow to President Barack Obama, whose healthcare reform programme is now in doubt.
Democrat Martha Coakley conceded she had lost the race after early results gave Mr Brown a healthy lead.
The Republican win has robbed the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.
This will make it much harder for Mr Obama to pass a healthcare reform bill - the most important domestic policy objective of his first year as president.


“ The independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken - the voters of this commonwealth defied the odds and the experts ”
Scott Brown

The BBC's Paul Adams, in Boston, says Ms Coakley's defeat is a humiliating blow for the Democrats and their agenda, and a deeply unwelcome anniversary present for President Obama a year after his inauguration.
He adds that it is one of the biggest political upsets in years, and a devastating blow for the Democrats in a seat held for almost half a century by Edward Kennedy, a colossus of the party who died last year.
'Senator Beefcake'
In his victory speech, Mr Brown, 50, said that the voters of Massachusetts had "delivered a great victory".
He said: "Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken. The voters of this commonwealth defied the odds and the experts."


“ This is a calamity for the Democratics, all the more on the very day the president has been in power a year ”
Mark Mardell

He also made it clear he would join his Republican colleagues in trying to block President Obama's healthcare reform proposals.
Dubbed Senator Beefcake in the US media, Mr Brown is a lawyer and former model who posed almost naked for Cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980s while in law school.
After conceding the election in a telephone call to Mr Brown, Ms Coakley told her supporters she was "heartbroken at the result".
Mr Obama had campaigned personally on behalf of Ms Coakley.
Analysts say the race should have been an easy win for her in a state which traditionally has voted for Democratic candidates for the US Senate.
Just weeks ago, Ms Coakley, the state attorney general, had a double-digit lead in polls and seemed destined to win.
Lacklustre campaign
But a lacklustre campaign allowed her Republican opponent - with vigorous support from conservative activists - to seize on voter discontent and overtake her in the final stretch.


Voters flocked to the polls through the snow and rain that fell all day on Tuesday.
Ms Coakley said she had received a telephone call from President Obama, who had told her: "We can't win them all."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Obama had called Mr Brown to congratulate him and to tell him he was looking forward to working with him.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would welcome Mr Brown to the Senate.
He added that senators "will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received" from Massachusetts officials.



Analysts say that with opinion polls showing nearly half of all Americans think President Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, the Massachusetts race could be seen as a referendum on his first year in office.
Correspondents say the vote may not bode well for the Democrats ahead of November's congressional elections, and that if they cannot hang on to a party stronghold such as Massachusetts they could be vulnerable almost anywhere.
The result was the third major loss for Democrats in state-wide elections since Obama became president: Republicans won governors' seats in Virginia and New Jersey in November.
President Obama has made healthcare his main domestic issue, seeking to revamp an expensive system that leaves nearly 50 million people uninsured.
Republicans have almost unanimously opposed his plans, saying it would lead to higher taxes and government meddling in healthcare decisions.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Does 1 seat more difference really throw the whole thing into jepardy? I find this whole thing confusing.

 

[Accountable]

Does 1 seat more difference really throw the whole thing into jepardy? I find this whole thing confusing.

Ain't it though? That one vote takes the Democrat party majority from 20 to 18 in the Senate, and changes not a thing in the House. The only thing that changes is that they can no longer shut down debate.


and why on earth would they want to shut down debate? :humm:


Universal healthcare is supposed to be a great and wonderful thing, right? It should be able to stand up to any scrutiny at all, shouldn't it?

Maybe, just maybe, there is something hidden in that thousands of pages of legal-speak that might not be construed as being in the people's best interest.

 

[Peter Parka]

Yeah, Obama's health care plan kind of confuses me. I at first thought it was supposed to be something like the NHS but Obama has said it isn't. Then it gets more confusing when the hard right Republicans drag some Tory misfit who has been shifted out to Europe (to spare our embarressment at him) onto Fox to tell the US that the NHS is shit and should be got rid of, completely against the thinking of just about all British parties, right or left. It seems to me that no one knows what the fuck it really means due to a load of bullshit propaganda being spouted out by both sides. Dont you have a news source which is fairly unbiased?

 

[Accountable]

Yeah, Obama's health care plan kind of confuses me. I at first thought it was supposed to be something like the NHS but Obama has said it isn't. Then it gets more confusing when the hard right Republicans drag some Tory misfit who has been shifted out to Europe (to spare our embarressment at him) onto Fox to tell the US that the NHS is shit and should be got rid of, completely against the thinking of just about all British parties, right or left. It seems to me that no one knows what the fuck it really means due to a load of bullshit propaganda being spouted out by both sides. Dont you have a news source which is fairly unbiased?

Just one, and even it confesses to lean left.

The Daily Show

Propaganda or not, though, the US federal gov't was never meant and is not set up to be a domestic service agency.

 

[Peter Parka]

Just one, and even it confesses to lean left.

The Daily Show

Propaganda or not, though, the US federal gov't was never meant and is not set up to be a domestic service agency.

Is your rubbish desposal, army, courts, mail, education ect ect private as well though? I really think that the health service should be one of the governments main priorities.

 

[Accountable]

Is your rubbish desposal, army, courts, mail, education ect ect private as well though? I really think that the health service should be one of the governments main priorities.

Our gov'ts are different. Different setup, different purpose, different foundation, different history. Federal and state governments are distinct and separate, rather than a pyramid of authority.

Rubbish disposal is generally local gov't contract with a private company, and mostly unnecessary outside of major urban areas. Army, courts, and education hardly fit the definition of "services," though a private or at least privatized education system would be far superior to what we have now, imo.

eta: oops, forgot to address the post. That was semi-privatized, and would be much cheaper and more efficient if we could cut it loose from the gov't altogether.

 

[Peter Parka]

Our gov'ts are different. Different setup, different purpose, different foundation, different history. Federal and state governments are distinct and separate, rather than a pyramid of authority.

Rubbish disposal is generally local gov't contract with a private company, and mostly unnecessary outside of major urban areas. Army, courts, and education hardly fit the definition of "services," though a private or at least privatized education system would be far superior to what we have now, imo.

Umm, until education was made a national service over here, lots of bright people missed out because they were poor. In fact, its still far from perfect in that regard and both sides of the government are pledging to make it fairer. I really dont see why it would be the complete opposite in the USA. Same goes for our army, was a lot less eficiant hundreds of years ago when the king had to call on lords to raise an army and caused so many problems, even revolt. A national health service is nothing new nor bordering on communism, its fair. I see it as heartless to think people should be allowed to live or die according to whether the're rich or poor. Our health, overall, has generally improved since the introduction of the NHS and I fail to see why any one would think it would go the complete opposite way in the USA.

 

[Francis]

Yeah, Obama's health care plan kind of confuses me. I at first thought it was supposed to be something like the NHS but Obama has said it isn't. Then it gets more confusing when the hard right Republicans drag some Tory misfit who has been shifted out to Europe (to spare our embarressment at him) onto Fox to tell the US that the NHS is shit and should be got rid of, completely against the thinking of just about all British parties, right or left. It seems to me that no one knows what the fuck it really means due to a load of bullshit propaganda being spouted out by both sides. Dont you have a news source which is fairly unbiased?

They vilified the Canadian Health Care system to defend their cause and show how Universal Health Care was bad..

The problem is they only contacted people who did not like the system and had a bitch about it, which you can find anywhere, and talked about the negative side of the system. Most of it outdated might I add.

I can only see one loser in all this.. The people who are kept misinformed..

 

[KpAtch3s]

Just one, and even it confesses to lean left.

The Daily Show

Propaganda or not, though, the US federal gov't was never meant and is not set up to be a domestic service agency.

This :thumbup

P.S.
Healthcare would be cheaper if they did an overhaul on tort law/medical mal practice laws to keep doctors from getting sued for everything they are worth or their insurance policy will cover.

 

[Tim]

This :thumbup

P.S.
Healthcare would be cheaper if they did an overhaul on tort law/medical mal practice laws to keep doctors from getting sued for everything they are worth or their insurance policy will cover.

Yup, we would save a whopping 1-1.5% on the cost of health care with tort reform. :sarcasm

Tort reform is nothing more than a red herring in this debate.

Do I think we need it? Absolutely, I think medical malpractice in this country is a joke. And I would like to see some common sense restrictions put into place. But it won't change what we pay.

Look at this little fact. The number of malpractice claims stayed the same since the late 1980's yet the cost of health care has doubled since then. Medical malpractice isn't the driving force behind the rise in health care costs.

 

[retro]

Yup, we would save a whopping 1-1.5% on the cost of health care with tort reform. :sarcasm

Tort reform is nothing more than a red herring in this debate.

Do I think we need it? Absolutely, I think medical malpractice in this country is a joke. And I would like to see some common sense restrictions put into place. But it won't change what we pay.

Look at this little fact. The number of malpractice claims stayed the same since the late 1980's yet the cost of health care has doubled since then. Medical malpractice isn't the driving force behind the rise in health care costs.

It actually is a driving force, because while claims haven't gone up, lawsuit awards, malpractice insurance premiums, and lawyer fees have. As a result, physicians have largely been required to raise their rates accordingly in order to be able to continue seeing patients. At the same time, physicians have been ordering extra (and often times completely unnecessary) tests in an effort to practice CYA medicine just in case the 1/1,000,000 case happens and they get sued for missing it. Since more tests are run, the labs have to employ more techs, which then drives their rates up in order to staff accordingly.

Tort reform is a far bigger deal than you seem to believe.

 

[Tim]

Would Tort Reform Lower Costs? - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Tim]

The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, an excerpt

 

[nova]

Would Tort Reform Lower Costs? - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, an excerpt

You can quote that BS all you want but I'm married to reality.

In preparation for the day my wife leaves residency, I've researched malpractice insurance rates and they're not cheap. They start @ $100k/year and go up from there. Somebody has to pay for that now don't they?

I also know as a 100% fact that doctors run more tests and do more procedures than they think are necessary just to cover their own ass. My wife does it. All her fellow residents do it. The legit attitude is that running extra tests costs the Doctor nothing while not running one that some lawyer later thinks is necessary could cost the Doc millions.

But don't let reality get in the way of your littl rah rah for single payer.....

 

[Accountable]

Anybody have a chart handy of when average healthcare costs started skyrocketing? I'll try to find one, but I'm betting there's a historical and systemic reason for it that has more to do with inserting middlemen between the doctor and the patient. Middlemen such as insurers, hospitals, lawyers, & government.

 

[nova]

Anybody have a chart handy of when average healthcare costs started skyrocketing? I'll try to find one, but I'm betting there's a historical and systemic reason for it that has more to do with inserting middlemen between the doctor and the patient. Middlemen such as insurers, hospitals, lawyers, & government.

A lot of it is that.

Just don't discount the fact that in the last 50-60 years, the sheer number of things within the realm of "health care" that we have to spend money on has increased greatly. That we have things to spend money on is at least part of the reason we are spending money. Its extremely hard to spend gobs of money on health care when your options are essentially morphine, penicillin and x-rays....

Couple that with the fact we actually have money to spend and of course spending is going to go up. No different than cell phones, computers, big screen TVs or any other good or service....

 

[Accountable]

A lot of it is that.

Just don't discount the fact that in the last 50-60 years, the sheer number of things within the realm of "health care" that we have to spend money on has increased greatly. That we have things to spend money on is at least part of the reason we are spending money. Its extremely hard to spend gobs of money on health care when your options are essentially morphine, penicillin and x-rays....

Couple that with the fact we actually have money to spend and of course spending is going to go up. No different than cell phones, computers, big screen TVs or any other good or service....

Except that the prices on cell phones, computers, big screen TVs or any other good or service go down as we spend more money on them and technology improves.

I found this CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf

This quote and accompanying chart are on page 5.

Historical Growth in Health Care Spending,1965 to 2005
​

Spending on health care in the United States has grown substantially over the past four decades (see Figure 1). In 1965, that spending amounted to $187 billion (in 2005 dollars). It more than tripled in real (inflation-adjusted) terms over20 years, reaching $666 billion in 1985. Over the next 20 years, spending nearly tripled again, reaching roughly $1.9 trillion in 2005.

Spending has also risen rapidly on a per capita basis, with growth averaging around 4.9 percent per year in real terms over the past four decades. By contrast,per capita GDP grew, on average, by only 2.1 percent per year during that period.As a result, health care spending is now a much larger proportion of GDP—nearly 15 percent in 2005 compared with 5 percent in 1965.

Although the growth of health care spending has been continual, the pattern of growth in the mid- to late 1990s differed from that of previous decades (see Figure 2). From 1965 to 1990, annual growth in real per capita spending averaged about 5.5 percent. Despite brief periods of relatively slow growth during that time,growth rates never remained low for a sustained period. That pattern changed during the 1990s; from 1994 to 1999, annual real growth never exceeded 2.8 percent. Some analysts attribute that lull to greater enrollment in managed care plans as well as to excess capacity among some types of providers, which increased health plans’ negotiating leverage.2 That period of relatively slow growth in health care spending also coincided with relatively rapid overall economic growth. As a result, the share of national income devoted to health care during those six years remained unchanged (see Figure 3). Since then, however, a combination of slower economic growth and accelerated spending on health care has led to a sharp increase in health care costs as a share of GDP—from 12.5 percent in 1999 to 14.5 percent in 2005.

At times like this I wish I were more versed in recent US history. I do know that sometime in the 80's it became more common for employers to offer health insurance as a job benefit (that's a perk, not a right). In the 90's the HMO started and was greatly appreciated before too many people jumped onboard, hurting it's ability to be as efficient as it once was. As more employers realized that insurance was cheaper than actual pay, I believe they overloaded the system. The economy was booming so everybody wanted as much as they could get. When the bubble burst, no one wanted to let go of their job benefit. yada yada yada ... everybody looks to Washington to wave some kind of magic wand, kiss our boo boo, and to make it all better.

 

[nova]

Except that the prices on cell phones, computers, big screen TVs or any other good or service go down as we spend more money on them and technology improves.

I think there are a couple key differences between the two though.

First is the fact that for consumer goods, people in general don't demand the absolute latest greatest, and most expensive, as long as it gets the job done. I still sport a 720P plasma despite the existence of much better TVs because it still gets the job done.

On the flip side, people essentially demand the latest and greatest version of whatever care they need. People could get by with just an X-Ray but they want an X-ray and an MRI and it better be on relatively new equipment.

There's also the issue of regulated and certified products. FDA approved is like FAA certified in my line of work. In other words, multiply the regular consumer price by a factor of 5-10. A lot of aviation GPSs have the same electronic guts as road GPS units, but they cost much more just because they're FAA certified.

That right there serves to keep prices higher than they would be otherwise.

I found this CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf

This quote and accompanying chart are on page 5.

At times like this I wish I were more versed in recent US history. I do know that sometime in the 80's it became more common for employers to offer health insurance as a job benefit (that's a perk, not a right). In the 90's the HMO started and was greatly appreciated before too many people jumped onboard, hurting it's ability to be as efficient as it once was. As more employers realized that insurance was cheaper than actual pay, I believe they overloaded the system. The economy was booming so everybody wanted as much as they could get. When the bubble burst, no one wanted to let go of their job benefit. yada yada yada ... everybody looks to Washington to wave some kind of magic wand, kiss our boo boo, and to make it all better.

Think much earlier than the 80s. Employer based health insurance started as a way of getting around gov't wage controls during WWII. Then somewhere along the line it became entrenched as non-taxable compensation. Makes for a perverse incentive to have insurance plans that cover just about everything...

 

[Accountable]

Yeh, that makes sense. Back then it was only for the upper executives. It would make sense that those guys would use their leverage to get the tax exemptions. The unintended consequences were only logical, in hindsight.

The point is that in my adult lifetime (and I ain't that old, dammit) I've seen health benefits go from a really cool perk that only the best employers - those most concerned with treating their employees like 'family' - offered, to a benefit most employers were expected to offer if they were to attract and retain the best producers, to now a God-given right that somehow God made employers responsible for providing.

Forget the reasoning the politicians use to justify this cluster-fuck. Seek out the logical "unintended" *cough, cough* consequences.

 

[edgray]

I just read this:

Shock defeat forces Obama to rethink healthcare reforms | World news | guardian.co.uk

So what's going on over there? I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the latest, but from what I can see it seems like Obama is making a real hash of everything.