The perfect alternative to the public option...

[retro]

It's an intriguing idea... but one that would fall flat on it's face. Medicare cannot currently sustain itself, so how exactly would expanding it solve any problem. Physicians already hate Medicare; the reimbursement rates for services is so ridiculously low that some physicians only see the minimum amount of Medicare patients that they're required to, because in some cases, it actually costs them money to treat a Medicare patient when you factor in their time, and the cost their overhead. Medicare reimburses between $8-60 for a routine office visit lasting 5-30 minutes. Yes, that's correct, a simple nurse followup visit gets reimbursed for about $8 by Medicare, while a level IV office visit lasting 25 minutes gets reimbursed for about $60, which in a lot of cases barely covers overhead, or costs the physician money.

Factors like those are why we need widespread health care (and medicare) reform... it doesn't mean that we need UHC, it means that we need to change the problems inherent in the system.

 

[ssl]

I never meant to infer it was one sided. I despise both sides. Just the left a bit more

why one a bit more so than the other? i hate the party system as a whole, as it slows progress overall.

 

[ssl]

I never meant to infer it was one sided. I despise both sides. Just the left a bit more

your intention was not clarified in the post; in fact, most people who do not care for both won't state it, thereby giving an image of hating one side, and all the associated connotations with it.

instead of labeling and blaming, how about we all refocus our energies on actually doing something about the issue?

 

[Alien Allen]

your intention was not clarified in the post; in fact, most people who do not care for both won't state it, thereby giving an image of hating one side, and all the associated connotations with it.

I consider myself a libertarian. There is a little bit of the republican stuff I support and virtually nothing the democrats that I support.

instead of labeling and blaming, how about we all refocus our energies on actually doing something about the issue?

are you nuts :eek
Where is the fun in doing that

 

[Tim]

I still want to know why we never hear it discussed that we are the ONLY industrialized nation in the world where it's legal to make a profit on basic health care.

 

[retro]

Unless I'm mistaken, the system is set up so benefits are based on what you pay into the system. Supposedly because there is this large bubble of baby boomers, this makes it hard for later generations of lesser number to cover the BBs when they retire. If anything more paying people in the system today helps it. What kind of logic are you using?

Simple math... in 1990 there were 30 Social Security recipients per 100 workers, that number is slated to increase to 46 per 100 over the next 20 years. Add to the fact that we've been robbing social security to make the budget deficit look smaller or claim that there was a surplus since at least the early 90s, and we have a situation where the Social Security trust fund is most likely going to be bankrupt by the end of the year.

 

[retro]

I still want to know why we never hear it discussed that we are the ONLY industrialized nation in the world where it's legal to make a profit on basic health care.

Because we have a free market system... and in most other industrialized countries, there is a single-payer system in place.

 

[darkcgi]

I wish it would just crash so hard it would make people have more value on what they already have and put
justice first instead of greed

 

[Tim]

Because we have a free market system... and in most other industrialized countries, there is a single-payer system in place.

Then why don't we have corporations making a profit on your fire protection or police protection?

There is a good reason that other countries don't allow corporations to make profits off of basic health care, because it's immoral, plain and simple.

Corporation by law MUST do everything possible to maximize profits for the shareholders, this conflicts with doing what's right by the consumer. They are going to do everything possible to deny coverage and payments all in the glorious name of profits.

Maybe doctors should start worrying about profit over all else, fuck the Hippocratic oath they took

 

[Tim]

Simple math... in 1990 there were 30 Social Security recipients per 100 workers, that number is slated to increase to 46 per 100 over the next 20 years. Add to the fact that we've been robbing social security to make the budget deficit look smaller or claim that there was a surplus since at least the early 90s, and we have a situation where the Social Security trust fund is most likely going to be bankrupt by the end of the year.

With the money put into the system by the baby boomers we were on track to have a surplus of $3.7 trillion by the end of 2018 and that surplus would have carried SS until the end of 2042 when the youngest of the boomers would be 78 years old.

So the system isn't broken, it the fact that Bush sr., Clinton and Bush jr, spent all the money. Al Gore had it right in 2000 when he campaigned to change the laws that would lock up SS funds and protect it from government spending.

 

[Alien Allen]

With the money put into the system by the baby boomers we were on track to have a surplus of $3.7 trillion by the end of 2018 and that surplus would have carried SS until the end of 2042 when the youngest of the boomers would be 78 years old.

So the system isn't broken, it the fact that Bush sr., Clinton and Bush jr, spent all the money. Al Gore had it right in 2000 when he campaigned to change the laws that would lock up SS funds and protect it from government spending.

Good old Al's lock box

Ah so it is not broke today

I get it.

It would have been broke when you are dead and buried.

No need to worry then eh?

It was and is a pyramid scheme. Maybe you need to prioritize exactly what other programs you want to get rid of if you want this one solvent. That and figure a way to truly fund it so it is sustainable.

 

[retro]

Pet peeve time....

George H.W. Bush = elected in 1988
George W. Bush = elected in 2000

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. don't exist... I generally refer to them at Bush 41 and Bush 43.

As far as Social Security and a "surplus" goes... it was a shell game, much like a Ponzi Scheme... it's a pay as you go system, and the "surpluses" they were projecting were based on futures and the assumption that people would keep paying into it at the same rate. The problem is that those surpluses never existed, and the government has been raiding the coffers of the Social Security trust fund for a long time now, most notably to give the illusion of budget surpluses during the Clinton administration.

To put it simply... the government is giving people money (those on Social Security) and paying for it based on money they project to take from people in the future. It's a wholly unsustainable system, and has been from it's inception. The theory is that you tax the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, in order to pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. That is essentially the same as a Ponzi Scheme where the new investors pay off the original investors and so on. This works as long as you keep bringing people into the system at the same rate that you're paying those already in it. Where it falls flat on it's face, and what we're seeing now, is when you can no longer maintain the ratio of new investors to existing. We have a situation where the population growth in the United States has slowed down, and as more people move out of the work force and into retirement, we don't have the same amount of people coming into the system that we can tax in order to pay for the benefits of those who have now retired. As I noted earlier, in 1990, the ratio was 30 beneficiaries of Social Security to every 100 workers, we're now projecting those numbers to be more like 46:100. When you combine all these factors, you're in the situation we're in now... where Social Security is largely bankrupt and is basically being funded by government IOUs, so the government is promising to pay another part of the government with money that doesn't exist and won't exist because the amount needed far exceeds the amount being brought in.

 

[Minor Axis]

So the system isn't broken, it the fact that Bush sr., Clinton and Bush jr, spent all the money. Al Gore had it right in 2000 when he campaigned to change the laws that would lock up SS funds and protect it from government spending.

The conservative motto "We don't want social programs", for general consumption is morphed into the responsible: "It's broke, lets get rid of it." Not a "It's broke, lets fix it". If forced it might become "Spend the least amount of money so they'll think we fixed it until the next election."

Why oh why could they not have locked up those SS funds?

 

[Alien Allen]

The conservative motto "We don't want social programs", for general consumption is morphed into the responsible: "It's broke, lets get rid of it." Not a "It's broke, lets fix it". If forced it might become "Spend the least amount of money so they'll think we fixed it until the next election."

Why oh why could they not have locked up those SS funds?

They wanted the money for other programs. Like I said there is a finite amount of money. I know you liberals think you can just keep raising taxes but there is a limit. So time to decide. What exactly do you want to keep. Because you can not have it all. The govt is running on fumes and living the same illusion the auto companies did where things were not sustainable. Hell in Detroit the school system and city govt have been running along as if they still had twice the population. Govt gets away with this shit and a business can not. Time for the govt to start acting like a business in that regard.

 

[Minor Axis]

That is essentially the same as a Ponzi Scheme where the new investors pay off the original investors and so on.

That is your jaded view. If payouts are controlled, it is simply a group fixed income investment. If not for SS, most of these people would have nothing. Apparently if they are not responsible enough to save on their own, to hell with'em, right?

 

[Minor Axis]

They wanted the money for other programs. Like I said there is a finite amount of money. I know you liberals think you can just keep raising taxes but there is a limit. So time to decide. What exactly do you want to keep. Because you can not have it all. The govt is running on fumes and living the same illusion the auto companies did where things were not sustainable. Hell in Detroit the school system and city govt have been running along as if they still had twice the population. Govt gets away with this shit and a business can not. Time for the govt to start acting like a business in that regard.

Social Security funds should have been locked up. Then they could decide whether they want to increase taxes or reduces services and without partisan bullshit games, let the people decide. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to make a fuss over it (the robbing of SS).

 

[retro]

Then why don't we have corporations making a profit on your fire protection or police protection?

There is a good reason that other countries don't allow corporations to make profits off of basic health care, because it's immoral, plain and simple.

Corporation by law MUST do everything possible to maximize profits for the shareholders, this conflicts with doing what's right by the consumer. They are going to do everything possible to deny coverage and payments all in the glorious name of profits.

Maybe doctors should start worrying about profit over all else, fuck the Hippocratic oath they took

You're comparing apples and oranges here though... the federal government doesn't provide police or fire protection to citizens, the local and state level governments do. It's a states rights issue when you really get down to it. Also, some of the largest health care plans in the United States, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, are non-profit.

Look, I'm not arguing that the system needs to stay the way that it is... I don't think anyone really thinks that. There needs to be health care reform, most everyone agrees with that... but reform != UHC.

What would your opinion be is the reform was to make for profit health care illegal and mandate that all health insurance companies be strictly not for profit? Would that be a fair and equitable solution? You believe that for profit health care insurance is immoral, so this solution would solve your moral opposition.

 

[retro]

That is your jaded view. If payouts are controlled, it is simply a group fixed income investment. If not for SS, most of these people would have nothing. Apparently if they are not responsible enough to save on their own, to hell with'em, right?

Now you're making up straw man arguments. In order for Social Security to work, there would theoretically need to be at least as many new workers coming into the system every year as there are moving into retirement. Is that a fair assessment? That is exactly how a Ponzi Scheme works... in order to pay for the original investors, there needs to be an equal number of new investors coming into the system... if the status quo is changed and the number of new investors drops, then you can no longer afford to pay the original investors. I'm well aware that there are differences between Social Security and a Ponzi Scheme. But the fact remains that the basic principles are nearly identical. There's nothing jaded about that viewpoint, it's nothing more than a factual one.

We're in a situation now where a) the number of new workers entering the workforce is and has been decreasing, b) the number of workers coming out of the workforce is increasing, and c) we've been raiding the trust fund in order to project budget surpluses or fund special projects for the better part of the last two decades. The system as it stands now is wholly unsustainable, because in order for it to work properly you have to maintain a proper balance between new workers and new beneficiaries, if the number coming in is less than the number going out, then it become insolvent. You may not want to hear it, but it's simple economics.

 

[retro]

Social Security funds should have been locked up. Then they could decide whether they want to increase taxes or reduces services and without partisan bullshit games, let the people decide. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to make a fuss over it (the robbing of SS).

You say that people should be able to decide if they want increased taxes or a reduction of services... shouldn't it also stand to reason that people should be able to decide whether or not they want to pay into the system to begin with? Shouldn't they be allowed to take their money elsewhere and do with it what they want? Obviously there should be some oversight on that, but why shouldn't I be allowed to take what I would pay into Social Security and invest it in the stock market, bonds, or a 401k? Why should I be forced to pay into a system that isn't solvent and will most likely be bankrupt by the end of the year, let alone when I would be eligible for benefits in another 40 years. If I made this choice, I obviously wouldn't be able to get social security when I became eligible for it, but the theory would be that I would've invested my money elsewhere and would live off of those investments. I shouldn't be required to pay into a system in order to pay for other people's benefits.

 

[Codrus]

i was just listening to someone talk about the obama administrations take on the the life expectancy differance between europe and the U.S. , the life expectancy of europeans with socialized medicine is 6 months higher than in the U.S. according to the obama admin.
(the next part is going to make me sound racist or something, but i'm not)
but i think what they have failed to take into consideration is that the U.S. has a higher minority concentration than europe, europe is mostly cuacasion 90% the U.S. is 70%, cacasions as a whole have a higher life expectancy on average than minorities by about 10 years, once these numbers are figured in it drops the life expectancy in the U.S. take them out and we blow socialized medicine away