Comrade Barack

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They aren't the same though.... nationalizing the hospitals, funding them directly by public taxation and bringing doctors and nurses into the employ of the government is a tad more radical than offering a basic insurance plan that will likely be means tested and of limited coverage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Single payer health care insurance is not the same as a nationalized health care system. Familiarize yourself with the difference between the two concepts and recognize that within the Western world, there's only one country - the UK - that has nationalized health care. No other country has pursued this route and there is no one in the US favoring this approach. Which makes all the pointing to the issues which the NHS faces quite irrelevant.

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, costs are born, at least in part, by the government. Implementations vary, ranging from single-payer health care systems (e.g. as in Canada or the U.K.), to compulsory, regulated, multi-payer systems (as in France and Germany). Universal health care systems also vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care, ranging from nationalized health care systems (such as the U.K. and Sweden) to decentralized private or non-profit institutions (as in Germany and Canada). Universal health care is implemented in all of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Obama, in the vid, mentioned "single payer." Please don't redefine or play the game of wordsmithing - Everyone knows what Obama meant.

Single payer, nationalized health care, universal health care are all basically the same. Arguing the minor differences is simply an effort to find an angle where you can claim Obama didn't mean what he really did mean.

Single payer health care and nationalized health care are far from one and the same. The difference between the two is in the delivery of health care services which - in a nationalized health care scheme - is done by the government (UK) or by private and/or non-profit institutions (Canada). To claim that there's no difference is factually incorrect. Your own quote points this out quite specifically, by the way.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Single payer health care insurance is not the same as a nationalized health care system. Familiarize yourself with the difference between the two concepts and recognize that within the Western world, there's only one country - the UK - that has nationalized health care. No other country has pursued this route and there is no one in the US favoring this approach. Which makes all the pointing to the issues which the NHS faces quite irrelevant.

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, costs are born, at least in part, by the government. Implementations vary, ranging from single-payer health care systems (e.g. as in Canada or the U.K.), to compulsory, regulated, multi-payer systems (as in France and Germany). Universal health care systems also vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care, ranging from nationalized health care systems (such as the U.K. and Sweden) to decentralized private or non-profit institutions (as in Germany and Canada). Universal health care is implemented in all of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Obama, in the vid, mentioned "single payer." Please don't redefine or play the game of wordsmithing - Everyone knows what Obama meant.

Single payer, nationalized health care, universal health care are all basically the same. Arguing the minor differences is simply an effort to find an angle where you can claim Obama didn't mean what he really did mean.

Single payer health care and nationalized health care are far from one and the same. The difference between the two is in the delivery of health care services which - in a nationalized health care scheme - is done by the government (UK) or by private and/or non-profit institutions (Canada). To claim that there's no difference is factually incorrect. Your own quote points this out quite specifically, by the way.

Didn't Canada force out by law the private insurance to insure public funding? That would be nationalizing wouldn't it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Single payer health care insurance is not the same as a nationalized health care system. Familiarize yourself with the difference between the two concepts and recognize that within the Western world, there's only one country - the UK - that has nationalized health care. No other country has pursued this route and there is no one in the US favoring this approach. Which makes all the pointing to the issues which the NHS faces quite irrelevant.

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, costs are born, at least in part, by the government. Implementations vary, ranging from single-payer health care systems (e.g. as in Canada or the U.K.), to compulsory, regulated, multi-payer systems (as in France and Germany). Universal health care systems also vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care, ranging from nationalized health care systems (such as the U.K. and Sweden) to decentralized private or non-profit institutions (as in Germany and Canada). Universal health care is implemented in all of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Obama, in the vid, mentioned "single payer." Please don't redefine or play the game of wordsmithing - Everyone knows what Obama meant.

Single payer, nationalized health care, universal health care are all basically the same. Arguing the minor differences is simply an effort to find an angle where you can claim Obama didn't mean what he really did mean.

Single payer health care and nationalized health care are far from one and the same. The difference between the two is in the delivery of health care services which - in a nationalized health care scheme - is done by the government (UK) or by private and/or non-profit institutions (Canada). To claim that there's no difference is factually incorrect. Your own quote points this out quite specifically, by the way.

Didn't Canada force out by law the private insurance to insure public funding? That would be nationalizing wouldn't it?

Do you go to Aetna or UnitedHealth for health care services or do you - like most people probably would - go to a doctor or hospital? Get the difference?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Also I keep hearing how there are 45 million uninsured and was wondering why this is so and why it means that the government needs to take over our health care system to insure these are taken care of.

45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys?

By Larry Elder

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?

A pro-"universal health care" television host recently cited this widely accepted "fact." The number is bogus.

Here's the skinny.

Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15 percent of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.

And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.

Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video (http://reason.tv/video/show/560.html) of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.

Millions more can access health care — through SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.

Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it — for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most — at some point — will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.

What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans — with access to health care, by the way — use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?

So now we're down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?

Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care . By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care — to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.

Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program's inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold — substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.

So here's the question.

Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.

What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others — currently prevented by law from offering any medical services — to provide low-cost care.

What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That's why God created lawyers. (Just give us "loser pays.")

What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What's wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.

We can provide such "universal" coverage at a "low cost" — through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.

[DEDixon 39]

I dated a USC who's mom was from England and she once joked about her mom's teeth - they were bad teeth. She said that it is a running joke that people in England have bad teeth because of the way health care is provided. Funny, that the best evidence of the quality of universal health care is as simple as a smile.

Isn't Austin Power's teeth messed up for the same reason?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Continued:

‘45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys?, Continued

By Larry Elder

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Last week's article on why 45 million Americans go without health care insurance touched a nerve and generated many questions and assertions:

"You and your pesky statistics! Forty-five million Americans without health care is huge. And you wrote that 89 percent of the 85 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied. That means 25 percent of all Americans are unsatisfied!"

Elder: Those "pesky" statistics become especially pesky when misstated. I wrote that 45 million Americans have no health insurance , leaving 85 percent with health insurance — but not without health care . ERs must treat the uninsured, including illegal residents. Meanwhile, 89 percent of Americans — with or without insurance — are satisfied with the quality of their own health care .

An 89 percent satisfaction rate sounds pretty darn high. Are people, for example, 89 percent satisfied with their jobs? Their marriages? Their financial situations? Their experiences at concerts or ballgames or restaurants or hotels or with airline travel? An 89 percent satisfaction rate is pretty impressive for most things we pay for.

And as for the remaining 11 percent — to what degree and for what reason are they "dissatisfied"? Had bad experiences? Don't like having copays? Would prefer a complete choice of doctors but are restricted by their plans? Had to wait for appointments or sit too long in waiting rooms? (Canadians are used to eight-month-or-more waits and long lines. Americans, I assure you, are not.) A lot of people simply complain — about most everything.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

For example, 10 years ago I had laser eye surgery. I filled out a questionnaire designed to determine how fastidious I am. Why? The doctor told me the surgery would not get me 20/20 vision. Was I OK, the doctor asked, with a less than 20/20 result? I was. He said some prospective patients, however, are dissatisfied with such a result. Given their — in his view — unrealistic expectations, the doctor wouldn't treat them.

"Doesn't universal coverage work in Canada?"

Elder: Not exactly. Large numbers of Canadians came (and still come) to America to avoid waiting for MRIs or to get time-sensitive treatment that couldn't wait. Canada is moving toward more privatization — which was previously illegal in Canada but is now permitted as a result of a successful lawsuit. Imagine having to sue to spend your own money in a voluntary transaction between two parties! According to a 2007 survey by the Canadian Fraser Institute, the median wait time in Canada between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment was more than 18 weeks — and up to 38 weeks for procedures such as orthopedic surgery.

"What's wrong with a government-provided alternative plan to keep the insurance companies honest and more competitive?"

Elder: Here's a recent example of what happens when government sets up "alternative" plans to cover the uninsured at (supposedly) lower costs. Hawaii offered universal child health care — for seven months. Then it dropped the plan. Why? People (and employers) with private plans dumped them to ride the "cheaper" government train. One of Hawaii's health care administrators lamented, "I don't believe that was the intent of the program." And Hawaii is a small state, without nearly the number of "health insurance needy" as we have on the mainland.

"Come on! Obviously the American health care system IS broken! That's why our life expectancy is so much lower and our infant mortality rate is so much higher than in other countries."

Elder: Ezekiel Emanuel, a medical adviser to the President (and brother of Rahm, the chief of staff), once told me, "Life expectancy is one of the dumbest ways to measure the quality of a nation's health care." Quality of medical care does not — by itself — determine life expectancy. For example, deaths from accidents and murders are much higher in America than in other developed countries. Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider calculated that if accidental deaths and homicides during the '80s and '90s were removed from the calculations, life expectancy in America would have ranked at the top of all developed countries. What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.

As for infant mortality, a 2007 study by economists June and David O'Neill found that low birth weight drastically increases an infant's chance of dying. They compared U.S. infant mortality (6.8 per 1,000 births) with Canada's (5.3). Teen mothers are far more likely to have low-weight babies, and America's teen motherhood rate is three times higher than Canada's. They determined that if Canada had America's low-weight birth distribution, Canada's infant mortality rate would rise from 5.3 to 7.06. If America had Canada's low-weight birth distribution, our infant mortality rate would fall from 6.8 to 5.4.

So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.

[DEDixon 39]

Hey, just because Obama bama doesn't own the hospitals under what he is currently offering doesn't mean he doesn't want to own the hospitals.

He really wants to own the hospitals... one at a time until it is all done.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Part 3:

‘45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys?, Part III

By Larry Elder

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "President Barack Obama says that he can pay for his goal to provide health care insurance for every American without it. Why isn't that good enough for you?"

Elder: Yes, the President says that he can "pay for" his goal of providing health insurance for every American without it. Care to bet on that?

When government proposes a program, the ultimate price tag inevitably exceeds projections. In "Why Government Doesn't Work," libertarian Harry Browne wrote: "Most older people now find it harder to get adequate medical service. Naturally, the government points to the higher costs and shortages as proof that the elderly would be lost without Medicare — and that government should be even more deeply involved. When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion — eight times as much."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Congress, from the outset, placed Medicare on autopilot because of a growing, aging and longer-living elderly population. Congress, from time to time, attempts to "rein in" increased costs by imposing fixed reimbursement schedules. This simply creates an incentive on the part of doctors and hospitals to schedule a lot of unnecessary tests or to "pingpong" patients from specialist to specialist in order to evade the artificial limits. This also forces doctors and hospitals to charge more from private carriers to offset the low reimbursement rates provided by Medicare.

Everybody gets hurt — the elderly because the medical profession becomes less efficient, innovative and cost-effective, and the non-elderly because practitioners charge them more to offset the lower reimbursement rates provided by the government.

"We need to require all employers to provide health insurance."

Elder: We end up paying more, not less. During World War II, Congress imposed wage freezes. Business people who wished to attract employees had little recourse but to offer non-cash benefits. The government, recognizing business people's "plight," allowed business to deduct the cost of health insurance as a business expense. This put, for the first time, something between doctor and patient, distorting the traditional fee-for-service system, used so successfully up until then. It also created the incentive to get your medical care through your employer rather than pay for it directly.

I once lived in a large apartment complex that included utilities paid by the landlord. During hot summer months or cold winter months in my previous apartment — where I paid for utilities — I turned the thermostat off when I left the apartment and put on the heat or air when I returned. Once I moved into the "utilities-included" apartment, I left my heat and air on all day, thus ensuring a perfect climate when I came home — sometimes as long as 12 hours later.

Now, I knew that somehow I paid, but the cost would be distributed over all the tenants in the building. So the conscientious tenant who cut off his or her air subsidized my carefree use of utilities. Eventually, we all pay, but the effect becomes gradual and diffused over a number of people who have little incentive to "conserve."

This applies to employer-provided insurance. Employees have less incentive to refrain from seeing doctors for minor reasons, less incentive to watch and manage their own health, and no incentive to cost compare among competing insurers and health care providers.

"I'm a supporter of free markets and competition, but that doesn't apply to medicine. Improved technology and research costs just drive the price of medicine up." Elder: New technology — in most any field — initially costs a lot. Consider the cost years ago of computers and calculators versus what we pay today for equipment and applications far faster, easier and more powerful. Remember the price of calculators 30 years ago? Today they are so cheap some outlets give them away as gifts — loss leaders to get you into the store.

Government-imposed rationing sacrifices quality and innovation while imposing long wait times. But you cannot control costs without removing the incentive to improve and innovate. How many medical-care breakthroughs occur in Canada? How many new drugs to improve patient outcome come from Canada? Without the profit incentive, you get fewer entrepreneurs and fewer investment dollars because you've diminished the likelihood of reward.

Want efficiency? A friend of mine who serves on the board of a hospital in Ontario recently wrote: "We have actually had to send money back to the government because the surgeries — scheduled months earlier — didn't occur because patients went to the U.S. for treatment instead. Funding is specific to some procedures, and if not used, the money is sent back. Right now we are losing the surgery money because we have a bed shortage for folks who can't return home because of the level of care they need, but there are no facilities for them to transfer to. Why, you ask? Government regulations make it next to impossible for private people to make a profit. And so the vicious circle continues."

Welcome to ObamaCare

[Ban Hammer 13,206]

WT? On these health care threads, I have posted several clips of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, his brother, WH health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, and HHS Sec. Katherine Sebelius ALL saying they want a single payer plan, to end private insurance, and that it has to be done incrementally. These are their words, straight from the horse's mouth, people, not someone's interpretation of what they want to do. Is anyone paying attention?

did you expect anything different from the dims?

[luckytxn 2,264]

WT? On these health care threads, I have posted several clips of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, his brother, WH health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, and HHS Sec. Katherine Sebelius ALL saying they want a single payer plan, to end private insurance, and that it has to be done incrementally. These are their words, straight from the horse's mouth, people, not someone's interpretation of what they want to do. Is anyone paying attention?

did you expect anything different from the dims?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey, just because Obama bama doesn't own the hospitals under what he is currently offering doesn't mean he doesn't want to own the hospitals.

He really wants to own the hospitals... one at a time until it is all done.

And that assertion is based on what exactly?

WT? On these health care threads, I have posted several clips of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, his brother, WH health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, and HHS Sec. Katherine Sebelius ALL saying they want a single payer plan, to end private insurance, and that it has to be done incrementally. These are their words, straight from the horse's mouth, people, not someone's interpretation of what they want to do. Is anyone paying attention?

Single payer system - that would be awesome. Something I can support.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dated a USC who's mom was from England and she once joked about her mom's teeth - they were bad teeth. She said that it is a running joke that people in England have bad teeth because of the way health care is provided. Funny, that the best evidence of the quality of universal health care is as simple as a smile.

Isn't Austin Power's teeth messed up for the same reason?

Its a running joke from a couple of generations ago, not so much today.

Most dentistry in the UK is private - its actually quite difficult to find an NHS dentist.

[DEDixon 39]

Hey, just because Obama bama doesn't own the hospitals under what he is currently offering doesn't mean he doesn't want to own the hospitals.

He really wants to own the hospitals... one at a time until it is all done.

And that assertion is based on what exactly?

The NRA and the anti-life movements of all places!

NRA: "if we let them take our machine guns, next will be our shotguns"

anti-lifers: "if they outlaw partial birth abortions, that is one step closer to regular abortions"

So it is easy to assert that the current effort is just a stepping stone to all out nationalized health care (the UK type).

Edited August 9, 2009 by DEDixon

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey, just because Obama bama doesn't own the hospitals under what he is currently offering doesn't mean he doesn't want to own the hospitals.

He really wants to own the hospitals... one at a time until it is all done.

And that assertion is based on what exactly?

The NRA and the anti-life movements of all places!

NRA: "if we let them take our machine guns, next will be our shotguns"

anti-lifers: "if they outlaw partial birth abortions, that is one step closer to regular abortions"

So it is easy to assert that the current effort is just a stepping stone to all out nationalized health care (the UK type).

Easy, perhaps. Meaningful? Not really. If it was, the OECD nations running a universal coverage scheme - or at least those with a single payer system - would all have nationalized health care by now. Look around, they don't.