Cursor_ says:

This is the republican’s method of reforming healthcare:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Now let’s look at that.

How does buying health insurance across state lines from the same companies that sell insurance in most states and then refuse to pay for many medical procedures help?

To me, these companies already get our money. And many times deny payment for one reason or another. They HAVE to do that as it cuts into profits if they pay out too much. They know the way to keep a balanced budget. You take more in than you pay out.

Good for business, bad for human life.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

Sounds promising doesn’t it. But as someone that has been in large corporations that cut their budgets by negotiating low health care costs at the price of providing less coverage with higher deductibles; I don’t buy that “communes” of individuals, small businesses and trade associations will be enabled to make group options any better than the present big boys that do it.

Again it is still going to the same companies in place that provide insurance. So really all it does is ADD to the pool.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

I see. So the federal government is not trustworthy nor fit for the duty of providing health care for the nation; BUT states are. When many states are looking for the federal government to bail them out in their deficit spending habits.

Does anyone know what specious means?

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued

In 2007, 3% of all suits filed against a doctor ended up in court. And of those 17% ended in the plaintiff’s favour.

Now that’s 17% of 3%. I’ll let you do the math.

Why then is physician insurance so high? Maybe it is because those insurance companies are running their profitable organisations the way healthcare insurance companies do?

So does anyone feel they will get better and affordable healthcare if doctor’s don’t have to pay high insurance and we keep going to the same people that sell insurance now?

Anyone?

Cursor_

Misanthropic Scott says:

#32 – Olo Baggins of Bywater,

MikeN, that’s not a good comparison…what you want is total premiums paid compared to actual healthcare payouts, and total Medicare funding vs actual healthcare payouts.

Excellent point, but not the whole picture. You also have to add in that statistically medicare has far sicker patients, being all over 65. So, certainly the payouts are higher. But, with medicare for all, we’d save money by getting the government into insuring some of the healthier population and thus insuring a statistically healthier bunch than they do today.

aslightlycrankygeek says:

Why is everyone acting like he beat them in a debate? He answered most questions with questions, and the ones he did answer were not really compelling, but seemed to be answering a completely different question. He is obviously good at debate, and sounds good, but if you are really focusing on the question and hoping for a real response, you will not find it.

For example, he is comparing the public option to the government paying insurance companies. Is anyone proposing this? Why is this used for the comparison? The real point the other people were making was that Medicare is going bankrupt and we can’t afford to pay for it now, so how can we afford to pay for it if we expand it to everyone?

If you do not want the government taking over even more of the GDP, you don’t want to have to pay higher taxes, and you don’t want our country even closer to bankruptcy, Democrat shills like this are going to do nothing to convince you that this is what you need.

Stephanie says:

Our Weiner beats your Boehner.

Animby says:

#40 – Thank you, Bobbo, for referring to my very well informed opinions as ignorant. As far as I know, I am the only person posting regularly here who has practiced medicine and under a variety of social and payment systems around the world.

You state my emergency room care comment shows the weakness of the system (and my argument). Well, nonsense. While all are “created equal” that doesn’t mean that all are entitled to equal medical care. Even in socialized countries, people with the ability to pay can (and do) receive better medical care. As I tried to state, it distresses me to see people going into deep debt due to healthcare costs. And this is what I think the govt should be working on. A safety net for the under/non-insured. And if that means going to a public hospital (instead of the public option) for your heart attack and then paying it off in installments, then so be it. So you go to a public hospital and you don’t get a private room or flowers on the bedstand. You still get quality care and you don’t go bankrupt.

#29 – jmrouse: I don’t believe I said anything at all about all medical care should be delivered at tertiary medical facilities. Please don’t put words in my mouth and then tell me I’m ignorant for saying them.

Animby says:

#42 – You’re right. I said it. It’s true. I did not say the situation was ideal. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of an example. 2+2=4 is simple arithmetic. It is also an example of mathematics. If I’m trying to show a simple arithmetic solution, it is not necessary for me to explain geometry. If you’d like to buy me a few beers, I’ll enlighten you on my theory of health care reform all the way up to calculus. Please feel free to reply to this in any way you care. Personally, I think the thread is getting old. I’m sure I’ll see you in another thread trying to overthrow a system that is working and replacing it with one that will cost two or three times as much to do less. Wait. You’re not a banker, are you?

Jmrouse says:

#43 You are avoiding my point. Will a hospital visit by an uninsured person provide long term treatment and consultations for that person if they have diabetes? How about rehabilitation treatment for someone who becomes partially paralyzed from waist down? Loose a hand and need a prosthetic? Not gonna get much help there from your uninsured visit are you?

You said, “One thing you need to remember is that NO ONE in the US is without health care. Show up at the emergency room and you WILL be cared for.”

You apparently define “health care” in a far more limited fashion then anyone with a medical background should.