Democratic Congressman Describes Republican Health Care Plan: "Die Quickly"

[HAL 9000 96]

[mawilson 2,133]

Stupid is and stupid does, and you do stupid very well indeed. Bravo - what particular back water do you inhabit swamp man?

[alienlovechild 75]

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

Another poster who's never heard of Medicaid, Medicare or any or the state counterparts but truly believes we can cover everyone with better quality and be deficit neutral while having no idea of the size of the program nor how the revenue will be raised.

If Obama is so competent in healthcare reforms, why didn't he urge Congress to save the money he claims is now wasted now then use it an example his competence in continuing to reform healthcarein the future?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

Another poster who's never heard of Medicaid, Medicare or any or the state counterparts but truly believes we can cover everyone with better quality and be deficit neutral while having no idea of the size of the program nor how the revenue will be raised.

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Or they are doing it at our expense.

[chri'stina 190]

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

Another poster who's never heard of Medicaid, Medicare or any or the state counterparts but truly believes we can cover everyone with better quality and be deficit neutral while having no idea of the size of the program nor how the revenue will be raised.

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Don't they have higher taxes to cover it? Can we really get a better thing without any cost? That would be too good to be true. If actually true, awesome. I don't know though. I personally don't have my head in the sand even if someone wants to think I do.

I don't oppose something just because I'm not a democrat or didn't vote for Obama. Joseph & Ana does not represent every republican or person who is not sure about the plans going on. He is an easy target for people here. A perfect combo of far right wing ideas + obnoxious posting style.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the idea is for the public part of the plan to be completely budget neutral- meaning that any outgoing services be covered by current taxation rates. Somehow some silly notions of Finance 101 flunkies insist on calling things out that are apparently not there.

[Heracles 417]

Why is this so hard to understand? Without going into details and without knowing everything about any of the health care system in the developed world, one can look at available data. The numbers are plain and simple: Health care for all at an overall better quality with overall better outcomes and patient satisfaction at roughly half the cost. That is what all other industrialized nations do.

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

For a good reason too. They have taken health care as an avenue to profit out. As such, it's administered at cost price.

You have to understand the psychology that is indoctrinated here, then it all makes sense. To some here, people abroad doing things much better than the US means nothing. If the US had vehicles that drove on 5 wheels, rather than 4 used everywhere else, people would still simply want to stick with 5 wheels because it's Ameeeeerican. Then in the next breath they would chant about how awesome the country is and how much the rest of the world envies both it and the constitution. Even though strangely enough nobody wants to implement anything the US is doing. To the contrary, the rest of the develop world works together forming their own often better system/s.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Booyah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think the idea is for the public part of the plan to be completely budget neutral- meaning that any outgoing services be covered by current taxation rates. Somehow some silly notions of Finance 101 flunkies insist on calling things out that are apparently not there.

Oh no, my friend. The public plan, as advertised, will be self-sustaining and off budget, much like Medicare and Social Security, or the Postal Service, funded soley through premiums. No taxpayer subsidy at all, or at least that is the plan as advertised. What will be subsidized, at taxpayer expense, will be the premiums paid for by the goverment, in part, or in full, for those currently uninsured, or underinsured, similar to Medicaid.

This is not even close to my preferred solution, where the government pays for, and administers the entire healthcare delivery system, for everybody in the United States, out of the general fund. One system for all, paid for by all.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Or they are doing it at our expense.

Oh, please.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

Another poster who's never heard of Medicaid, Medicare or any or the state counterparts but truly believes we can cover everyone with better quality and be deficit neutral while having no idea of the size of the program nor how the revenue will be raised.

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Don't they have higher taxes to cover it?

No, they pay on health care about half of what we pay. In real numbers: $8K per capita in the US, $3-5K per capita elsewhere in the industrialized world. 16%+ of GDP here, 8-10% of GDP elsewhere in the industrialized world. Any way you slice it, they pay less. And patient satisfaction as well as overall outcomes are, for the most part, better elsewhere in the developed world. Look it up. The OECD keeps some pretty good stats.

Can we really get a better thing without any cost?

All the other industrialized nations do. I don't see why we couldn't. If we wanted to.

[Dan J 277]

Their models work better and more efficiently than ours. And all of their models are based on more govenment involvement not less and yet they're more efficient and patient oriented than our broken and purely profit oriented system. It's neither a secret nor some big mystery. It doesn't rquire intimate knowledge of the various systems out there. It only requires the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. And even that seems too much to ask.

Another poster who's never heard of Medicaid, Medicare or any or the state counterparts but truly believes we can cover everyone with better quality and be deficit neutral while having no idea of the size of the program nor how the revenue will be raised.

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Don't they have higher taxes to cover it? Can we really get a better thing without any cost? That would be too good to be true. If actually true, awesome. I don't know though. I personally don't have my head in the sand even if someone wants to think I do.

I don't oppose something just because I'm not a democrat or didn't vote for Obama. Joseph & Ana does not represent every republican or person who is not sure about the plans going on. He is an easy target for people here. A perfect combo of far right wing ideas + obnoxious posting style.

You pay for it as a tax or a separate premium, it doesn't matter, you still pay for it in the end. When you include cost of US health insurance premiums in the tax burden calculation, most people pay more in the US than they would in the UK.

The only people who get a better deal in the US, are the wealthy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only people who get a better deal in the US, are the wealthy.

The rich always get a better deal. That is why they are wealthy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Or they are doing it at our expense.

Oh, please.

Why do you think a pill costs $2 in Canada and $50 here? Because the governments in Canada (and Europe) dictate how much a company can charge for a pill.

[Dan J 277]

Another poster who rather doesn't look at the data. It's not that hard: Every other industrialized country does it - provide more for less. How can they do it and we can't? Are they all smarter and better than America?

Or they are doing it at our expense.

Oh, please.

Why do you think a pill costs $2 in Canada and $50 here? Because the governments in Canada (and Europe) dictate how much a company can charge for a pill.

We can definitely do it too. There is so much waste in the drug industry its not even funny. And the profit oriented goals lead to getting people hooked on drugs they don't need and much development money is spend not on useful drugs to treat problems, but instead on drugs that make money.

That and a lot of money to develop treatments come from government grants or non-profit foundations and the drug company still ends up with a patent lock on the new drug.

If the US does like other developing countries and sets purchasing prices, the industry would change, but probably for the better. Not every drug researcher is solely motivated by money.