Wyden's vision for health care reform begins with making sure everyone is covered

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Are you exempt if you're not poor and don't have an employer?

If you're not poor, you're pretty much screwed under Obama's administration, period.

So... in other words, health care is a right for those who can't afford it, but it's a luxury for those who can since they'll pay for it.

As I see it, if health care is a right, then everyone pays into the system; if it's a luxury, then everyone has to pay their own way. Making some pay for others is ludicrous.

it's a great idea if you're one of those who's on the short side of income.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are you exempt if you're not poor and don't have an employer?

If you're not poor, you're pretty much screwed under Obama's administration, period.

So... in other words, health care is a right for those who can't afford it, but it's a luxury for those who can since they'll pay for it.

As I see it, if health care is a right, then everyone pays into the system; if it's a luxury, then everyone has to pay their own way. Making some pay for others is ludicrous.

it's a great idea if you're one of those who's on the short side of income.

It won't be long before we all start feeling a little short on income.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At this point I think socialised healthcare would cut costs to the taxpayer. Imagine if you didn't have to pay those huge out of pocket expenses on top of monthly premiums, and be told that you can't have treatment for conditions that aren't covered by your plan (for no obvious reason). To say nothing of the massive bureaucracy that we have in the current system.

[dalegg 143]

At this point I think socialised healthcare would cut costs to the taxpayer. Imagine if you didn't have to pay those huge out of pocket expenses on top of monthly premiums, and be told that you can't have treatment for conditions that aren't covered by your plan (for no obvious reason). To say nothing of the massive bureaucracy that we have in the current system.

I'm skeptical that there is a massive bureaucracy in the current healthcare system just sitting there wasting money that the private sector could slice away and save us all money. The private sector is all about cutting waste, especially expenses. If an insurance company could save us money by cutting expenses, then why wouldn't they do so they could be more competitive? It is just illogical. And you are never going to convince me that putting the US government in charge of something once controlled by the public sector is going to create less bureaucracy and less waste.

Edited April 21, 2009 by dalegg

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The driving principle behind healthcare should never be to provide it with least waste or most efficiency... it should be to maximize patient outcomes, period.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The driving principle behind healthcare should never be to provide it with least waste or most efficiency... it should be to maximize patient outcomes, period.

I think they're connected, to be honest.

[dalegg 143]

The driving principle behind healthcare should never be to provide it with least waste or most efficiency... it should be to maximize patient outcomes, period.

Well thats fine. If the basis for universal healthcare is to get everyone insured, regardless of cost, then the people behind it- including the President- should just say that. But he comes out promoting this idea as necassary because it will save us all money, and its impossible for the U.S economy to stabilize unless we deal with the costs of healthcare. He said that.

I'm not just being partisan here. I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money. It will certainly save some people money, but the country as a whole? I'm not getting it unless everyone accepts lower salaries and profit. I don't see that happening either.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Insurance companies seek to achieve optimal levels of patient outcomes by balancing them against cost. The net result is a denial of coverage to some patients, resulting in lower patient outcome but higher profit/lower premiums.

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At this point I think socialised healthcare would cut costs to the taxpayer. Imagine if you didn't have to pay those huge out of pocket expenses on top of monthly premiums, and be told that you can't have treatment for conditions that aren't covered by your plan (for no obvious reason). To say nothing of the massive bureaucracy that we have in the current system.

I'm skeptical that there is a massive bureaucracy in the current healthcare system just sitting there wasting money that the private sector could slice away and save us all money. The private sector is all about cutting waste, especially expenses. If an insurance company could save us money by cutting expenses, then why wouldn't they do so they could be more competitive? It is just illogical. And you are never going to convince me that putting the US government in charge of something once controlled by the public sector is going to create less bureaucracy and less waste.

That's only true if you believe that the financial interests of healthcare providers, and health insurance companies somehow align with the immediate interests of the patient to receive timely, quality and affordable care. I don't think that's the case.

As it is everytime you visit a new doctor you have to fill out a whole raft of new patient forms and liability disclaimers - which necessitates an entire admin department at the healthcare provider to store records for and navigate the various rules of numerous different insurance companies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

All countries that have universal coverage for all its citizens, spend less than what we spend per capita. Those facts are hard to ignore.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

All countries that have universal coverage for all its citizens, spend less than what we spend per capita. Those facts are hard to ignore.

all countries?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

All countries that have universal coverage for all its citizens, spend less than what we spend per capita. Those facts are hard to ignore.

all countries?

Can you name one that spends more on health care than we do?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

All countries that have universal coverage for all its citizens, spend less than what we spend per capita. Those facts are hard to ignore.

Their medical industries don't charge what ours do. Their doctors don't pay the malpractice premiums ours pay.

In the end, that's not the point. This should never be about saving money. Private enterprise can do that just fine. This should be about maximizing patient outcomes, period. All other goals should be secondary. If we have a new system that doesn't achieve that primary goal, it will have been a waste.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I seriously cannot wrap my hands across the notion that universal care is going to save the country money.

It won't. It will be a net cost.

All countries that have universal coverage for all its citizens, spend less than what we spend per capita. Those facts are hard to ignore.

Their medical industries don't charge what ours do. Their doctors don't pay the malpractice premiums ours pay.

In the end, that's not the point. This should never be about saving money. Private enterprise can do that just fine. This should be about maximizing patient outcomes, period. All other goals should be secondary. If we have a new system that doesn't achieve that primary goal, it will have been a waste.

The uninsured has a lot to do with the costs...moreso than any other factor. I have no idea how Germany, for example, handles malpractice, but in any case, it's worth looking at the countries that currently have universal healthcare.

You have to sell the idea to the NIMBY's ...the ones who get outraged over the thought of paying for someone else's healthcare...as if they don't already in higher premiums.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I oppose cost as the primary focus. I believe cost should be secondary to quality.