Right, and republicans are so scared people will like it they tried to keep it
from being funded after it was made a law. If they truly believed
their own lies they would just watch and let it fail on it's own. The truth is Japan, Australia and Sweden to name a few already have and love
their Obamacare like healthcare. They spend half as much as we do and get better
healthcare. That should be enough to go on.
The population is aging. Health care costs are skyrocketing. Any
unbiased look must conclude that our biggest future federal deficit problem is
medicare and medicaid.So, we have 3 choices.1) reduce
medicare and medicaid benefits2) increase the funding (ie taxes) to pay
for these services3) reduce the costs of providing these services.Does anyone disagree with that? If so, please explain.Part
of the problem is that the businesses who provide these services have no
incentive to reduce the costs. Their goal is to increase profits.Tell me. Which of the major healthcare pieces, besides the government has an
interest in controlling costs? Hospitals? NopeInsurance companies?
Not reallyDoctors? Not at allWe can complain all we want
about Obamacare. And there are tons of reasons to complain.But, the
pre Obamacare status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.Until
people grasp THAT truth, we will not deal with the problem.Lets say
the GOP was successful in killing Obamacare. Then what?If one looks
honestly at the facts and the truth, they can only conclude that something must
be done. Far too many think that reducing regulations will fix the
problem.That is ludicrous.
You mean a Republican and a Democrat trying to solve a problem together? Of
course that was doomed Senator. Sadly, but certainly.
I've looked at Bennett's proposal. It looks good on the surface. But
it is unlikely it would have been passed as proposed, especially if it
threatened insurance companies' profits even the slightest. After the
various lobbies were through with it, it would have looked a lot like Obamacare.
For-profit insurance must be removed from health care. That's the problem
with Obamacare and that would have been the problem with Bennett's proposal
once worked over by the congress.
I liked Bennett/Wyden better than I like Obamacare. But Senator Bennett's
party controlled the senate for 12 consecutive years and he was unable to
convince his colleagues to pass it. So we had to move on to something different.
Do any of you who are defending Obamacare know that the vast majority of people
who even bothered to sign up under Obamacare opted for Medicaid? And why not?
Its 100% taxpayer funded with no deductibles, no co-pays and no premiums!
Therefore it appears the goals and hopes of Obamacare are being defeated by
Medicaid competing with Obamacare! Why didn't we just expand Medicaid in
the first place and avoid all the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on
Obamacare? Obamacare is the dumbest excuse for a solution to a problem ever
forced on America. Period!
Thid.I am not defending Obamacare. But I KNOW that we the pre
Obamacare status quo was not an option.Anyone can complain. That
has been the GOP playbook for years now.What are your suggestions?
People are scouring the wrecking yards and farm sales the world over to find
parts to restore that old pontiac; those were the good old days.
The result is a health care version of a 1955 Pontiac. It’s large,
expensive to own and maintain, and burdened with features many customers
don’t want. ========= But, It let's
face it, it SURE beats walking, now - don't it!
The result is a health care version of a 1955 Pontiac. It’s large,
expensive to own and maintain, and burdened with features many customers
don’t want. ====== Oh, and one other thing
-- We can always trade it in and upgrade later for one of those
better built Socialist German or Japanese model Single Payer options later!
I'm just a little tired of politicians who think their job is
"Marketing Department" at a big corporation (USA Corp). And we little
people are just lab rats, or consumers to be dealt with and fleeced to keep the
corporation going. Like it's their job to figure out what we want... and
then give it to us (to keep us fat and happy). It's their job to LEAD.
Not to just follow the polls.Sometimes leaders have to do
what's tough (not what's popular). We don't have any leaders in
Washington anymore who are willing to do what's "right", even if
it's unpopular. Because all they care about is keeping the people happy
and giving them what their demographic analysis, focus groups, and Gallop
polling indicates the masses want (so they can keep getting elected).That's not how you lead.Somebody needs to figure out what the
right thing to do is and do it... not what polls the best, or gets them the most
votes in the next election.
"The fines they will pay if they do so — assuming that such fines can
actually be collected — are less than the premiums they would have
paid."That won't last long. Obama sucked everyone in with
the promise of $2,500 annual savings in health insurance premiums... with a
small penalty (tax, per the Supreme Court) for failure to sign up. Well, over
the next years going forward, that penalty will increase so that folks will go
screaming to sign up. And if they don't sign up or voluntarily pay the
penalty, the IRS will be on their doorstep to collect.
@JoeBlow: You asked for suggestions: give everyone a tax credit to buy health
coverage in a free market. And by free market, I mean one without restrictions
and mandates on what they cover, what it costs, how much money they can make, or
where it can be sold (including across state lines). Those who want more
expensive plans can dig into their own pockets and fund it. As Mr. Bennett
implied, the collective wisdom of markets is far better than anything that a
bureaucrat or politician could design.
@freedomingood:"The truth is Japan, Australia and Sweden to name a few
already have and love their Obamacare like healthcare."They had
no choice... nor does America, now."They spend half as much as
we do and get better healthcare."They live much healthier lives
than Americans. And if they did need good care quick, they usually end up in
the US where there were no lines to queue up in for help.Obamacare
is a disaster in the making, strung together, from the looks of it so far, by a
bunch of amateurs.
There was never any doubt that having the insurance and drug companies draft
significant portions of the law was going to result in a ungainly and awkward
parts of the Affordable Health Care Act. The ACA is, at best, poorly conceived,
poorly written, poorly implemented.That said, we see before us a
healthcare system better than what was there 2 years ago. It's a mangled
step forward, but a step forward nevertheless.
The first time National Health Care was proposed was by the Democrat Harry
Truman. The Republicans killed it then, and did everything they could when they
were in charge to ignore the issues. If the USA would have put a law in place
then, they would have been among the first in the world to have done so. But,
since they didn't and as the world did put in place health care plans, the
USA feel behind in both health services and in controlling health care costs.
Just like in the 50's, the cars were big and expensive and eventually
replaced with less expensive foreign models. It seems the problem today is that
the GOP hasn't recognized the problem just like the car companies in the
50's and in an effort to catch up with the world the democrats filled in a
vacuum. Can you imagine if in the 50's there would have been people who
said since the cars are so big and expensive that we should go back to the horse
Invisible.That all sounds well and good. I would be happy to see
insurance across state lines since that seems to be the main GOP health care
solution.But, lets look at the bigger issue. Are mandates or the
state line issue what causes the average, non c section childbirth to cost
$30,000?Do we really want to let companies drop you for a pre
existing condition?Is this what you honestly think causes a routine
outpatient procedure to cost $25,000+?Have you ever tried to control
your medical costs? Shop around for the best price?Do you sincerely
think that losing medicare payment caps would save money?Rather than
just stick with the party line, you should really think about it. Business is
there to make money. When they streamline, it is to improve the bottom line,
not to save the consumer money.We need to all drop the party
"wisdom" and actually deal with the problem.I am a huge fan
of capitalism, but the profits in health care are growing significantly and are
on track to bankrupt this country.
@Alfred"where there were no lines to queue up in for help."I had to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist for my health issue a couple
@Roland Kayser – “I liked Bennett/Wyden better than I like
Obamacare.”Me too… it was market oriented while
recognizing (and addressing) the inherent market failures in the healthcare
industry. It also had the virtue of decoupling health insurance from employment
– a mistake most countries recognized decades ago (i.e., no silly Hobby
Lobby lawsuits had we gone in this direction).The Senate lost a good
Senator when Bob was tossed out in favor of ideology. He was the type of
representative a Republic needs (since we all have day jobs and cannot possibly
be thoroughly educated on all the issues) – a pragmatic leader who focused
on results and could play nice with others.By their ideologically
driven inaction and refusal to participate in the process, the Republicans are
as responsible for Obamacare as anyone. We could have had a Lexus but instead we
got a Ford… whether it will turn out to be a Mustang or a Pinto remains to
@Alfred"They live much healthier lives than Americans. "Actually... a study found that smokers and the obese really aren't any
more expensive to the healthcare system. Why? They die earlier (not needing
health insurance from ages 70-90 because you died at 69 certainly is cheaper)
from things that tend to kill you faster on average, so it roughly evens things
out.Comparing similar treatments/details from country to country
yields radically different results/pricing. My one afternoon hospital stay cost
around 1,500 just for the room/bed (the entire bill was 18,000 but thankfully I
had insurance). My dad's hospital room part of his bill in Germany was
roughly 1,000... for an entire week. It was barely more expensive than a hotel.
His surgery itself was half the cost of what the same surgery would be in the
I'm sure Bob Bennett's 1st very first car was a brand new, top of the
line, Ferrari or Mercedes Benz too!But -- For what
American's are currently paying -- we should be able to afford better
than ANY Foreign job.Our "insurance" dealers are ripping us
freedomingood: "Right, and republicans are so scared people will like it
they tried to keep it from being funded after it was made a law. If they truly
believed their own lies they would just watch and let it fail on it's
own."The problem is that it can't "fail on it's
own" if government is mandating that everyone purchase it at inflated prices
even if it is a terrible product or face ever-increasing fines.If
Democrats truly believed their own lies (that it is a great system that everyone
wants) then they would make it stand on its own and let the free market work.
atl134,Having lived in both Germany and Japan... A hospital room there is
much like a hotel room. So costing the same is not that surprising.When on my mission in Japan we would often stop and visit with the men at the
neighborhood hospital (because they seemed to have nothing better to do than sit
in the yard smoking).I would start a casual conversation over the
fence by asking a group of guys on the bench if they are sick (to give us
something to talk about). The whole group would say, "No... we're on
yasumi" (yasumi meaning "vacation"). They explained that the
company gave them a certain number of vacation days each year, but they also had
a bunch of sick days, but you could only use them if you were in the hospital.
So each year when they were tired of work... they would check into the hospital
for a few weeks of rest and relaxation.So a hospital room in Japan
is basically a hotel room. When people are really sick they have family members
come to the hospital to care for them (because the nurses assume everybody there
was just on vacation).
@2 bits – “Having lived in both Germany and Japan... A hospital room
there is much like a hotel room.”I don’t think you
really addressed the question – since the peculiarities of one country
(Japan) hardly explain the global differences, and you did not address the
surgery aspect – but your anecdote was hilarious!Really, I
laughed out loud reading it. It that for real?Did you enjoy living
there or were the enough of these “cultural oddities” that it was
strange and off putting. I’ve heard the people are very nice…We can all get way too serious sometimes in these discussions…
thanks for lightening the mood.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTDid you ever stop to consider that
might be why the Japanese live 20 years longer than we do?And after
living in Germany, Japan, England, France and a dozen places through out the
United States -- Life is better elsewhere -- even from Utah.You might ask why I don't follow the Utah motto of "If you
don't like it, leave."It's because I feel like Mormon
did near the end,HIS people were being deceived, they were becoming
more wicked than the Lamanites, and they were the one's falling for
the lies of the Gadianton's, they were the one's dooming
themselves to utter destruction.He returned to their ranks, to try
to sway them to change - and repent - before it's too late.
To "JoeBlow" you list out problems that we had before Obamacare. But
you don't ever say if Obamacare fixed them.This is how things
stand right now with Obamacare.1. Costs have jumped on average over
40%, while benefits have decreased.2. Medicare had its funding cut.3. The cost of getting care has gone up, and will go up more due to the added
taxes imposed by the ACA, and the shortage of doctors that we had before
everybody got insurance.So tell us, what has been fixed?To "Open Minded Mormon" why would you want a German or Japanese model?
In Germany the doctors are just now beginning to use techniques that we have
been using for over 20 years. In Japan, the government taxes you more if you
wiegh too much. Do you not like having the most modern procedures available to
you? Do you really think that the director of HHS knows how much you should
@atl134:"I had to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist for my health issue
a couple years ago."You musta been in someplace like Canada."They die earlier..."Are you saying that is an
answer to our healthcare dilemma?Actually, someone has already
thought of it when he advised the elderly needing major healthcare such as a
knee replacement or new heart valve... 'to just go home and take a pain
killer.' (as reported recently in the DNews)"My one
afternoon hospital stay cost around 1,500 just for the room/bed (the entire bill
was 18,000 but thankfully I had insurance)."You probably were
helping to pay for something like an immigrant who came in, without insurance,
to have a baby or an indigent with a bad back."My dad's
hospital room part of his bill in Germany was roughly 1,000..."But, did he have TV and a magazine rack full of (outdated) reading material in
his room?"His surgery itself was half the cost of what the same
surgery would be in the US."Our doctors will be charging way
less after they become government employees under Obamacare.
@JoeBlow: The reason medical costs are so high is governments restrict supply.
They won't allow hospitals to be built "too close" to other
hospitals. They grant providers monopoly status with restrictions on who can
give care and how. If you want lower prices lower the the restrictions on
supply. We could also look at reducing demand. If the payers, including
Medicare, were allowed to design co-pays that reflected the cost of services,
people would think twice before demanding the most expensive drugs or
"But you don't ever say if Obamacare fixed them."No, I
dont think that Obamacare fixed the problems. But, the GOP does not
even see a problem and would certainly not go along with anything that would
address the larger and larger profits of the hospitals and in insurance
companies.A businessman like Romney, IF, and that is a big IF, was
unencumbered by the left and right politics, would approach this as the business
issue that it is and could come up with solutions that address the problem. But, neither the GOP or the dems (or the american people) would like the
solutions.So, instead, we have people who are bribed (campaign
contributions and lobby) to insure that the problem does not get addressed.
@wrz:"Actually, someone has already thought of it when they advised
the elderly needing major healthcare such as a knee replacement or new heart
valve... 'to just go home and take a pain killer.'"I
think it was Obama who said that. Here's the quote from a Google search:
"Old people don’t need life saving treatments they can take a pain
pill (and be left to die)"
@wrz"You musta been in someplace like Canada."Salt
Lake City."Are you saying that is an answer to our healthcare
dilemma?"Nope. I'm just saying blaming our higher
healthcare costs on smokers and the obese isn't obvious in the data. "But, did he have TV and a magazine rack full of (outdated) reading
material in his room?"Yes, and maybe, I wonder what the German
equivalent of Time is.
@atl134 "I had to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist for my health issue a
couple years ago."Obamacare -- making things worse since 2010.
To "JoeBlow" why look to the GOP for solutions? Do you go to an OB/GYN
when your car needs repair?Looking to politicians for a solution to
healthcare is the wrong thing to do. Why not go to the healthcare and health
insurance professionals and get their advice?You want us to choose
between socialism, and socialism-lite. Either way, you get the same thing, just
different serving sizes.
@RedShirtCalTech – “Looking to politicians for a solution to
healthcare is the wrong thing to do. Why not go to the healthcare and health
insurance professionals and get their advice?”A quote from
Upton Sinclair is instructive here…"It is difficult to get
a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it."And if you understand this and the size of our
lobby industry (K Street) in this country, you’ll understand why it is so
difficult to effectively solve real problems.Combine that with one
party who sees problems (and the need for government intervention) everywhere
but is often ham-handed in their attempts to solve them, and the other party who
usually denies there’s a problem at all, or when they do recognize a
problem typically has a facile response like “more freedom,” then
you’ll really have a sense for just how intractable things are.
To "Tyler D" so what is your solution? Are you looking for a solution
from government, or from private enterprise?
@RedShirtCalTech – “To "Tyler D" so what is your solution?
Are you looking for a solution from government, or from private
enterprise?”Good question…I typically look
to the private sector first until it proves unable to solve real market
failures… as is the case with healthcare. After that I would still prefer
the most market driven solutions with government intervention only in those
areas necessary. But it’s also necessary to first agree on
what the problem(s) actually are. Many on the Left seem to say that the only
real problem is lack of universal coverage while many on the Right… well,
to be honest I have a hard time figuring what the Right thinks the problem is.
They don’t talk much about universal coverage or even cost - unless
it’s what the government is paying for (Medicare), which doesn’t
address overall cost but only who’s paying the bill.All that
said, I thought the Wyden/Bennett bill was the best proposal for solving (in a
relatively market friendly way) many of the problems in the industry (e.g.,
analysis by The Lewin Group).What do you think?
To "Tyler D" it all depends on who you consider the Right. The John
McCains of the world would say that the problem is too much government
interference, but they have a government solution for that.The
problem truely is the government. For example, in the 1980's there were
about 800 mandates on insurance companies. Now, there are over 2400 mandates on
insurance companies. The regulations that the insurance companies have to deal
with are massive, and only add to the cost of insurance.If you want
to get healthcare to the masses, the insurance companies know how to do that.
For example, several years ago IHC set up grocery store clinics. For about $25
to $50 you could get routine care from a medical professional, without
insurance. They were shut down for reasons I can't find.It was
the insurance companies that gave young adults the option of catastrophic
insurance policies, not government.The insurance companies are
driven by profit and competition to deliver the best product at the cheapest
cost. The government is not. Within the government administrators are rewarded
for expanding and building their empires. This costs money and does not make
for a better product.Government is the problem.
@RedShirtCalTechThe US healthcare system is the least regulated, has
the least government interference in the first world. It also costs twice as
much as the other first world countries. I dont think government is the problem
in that regard.Also the US healthcare system is incredibly
inefficient, a good chunk of each dollar goes to administration cost.
To "UT Brit" we also have the best healthcare system in the world. You
can't have the best and pay the least. I am proud of the fact that we have
the least interference in out of the first world countries. I only wish that we
would have less interference.Actually, the healthcare system is
quite efficient. In private insurance, only 15% goes to overhead and profits.
That is much better than the government that operates on 20% to 30% overhead
alone.Why drag down the US system and start killing people like they
do in England or Canada, or other first world nations that ration their
I lived in Canada. I was a recipient of free, government-provided health care.
My neighbors bragged about their free health care.I had some friends
who were sick. Some even had malignant tumors. But health care was rationed
and geographically distributed far and wide to fairly divide the workload among
doctors and hospitals. Initial diagnostic appointments were often scheduled four
to six months out in clinics far from home with unknown doctors in unfamiliar
surroundings. If the unfamiliar doctor decided the patient needed a scope or a
scan or other diagnostic procedure, that was scheduled months down the road in a
facility way down the road. Canadian often die before they become a burden to
the taxpayers.Poor Canadians must beg for transportation to
appointments with strangers far from home. Friends who drive them or visit them
in free hospitals must pay eight to ten dollars to park their car, and a tv set
in the room is twenty dollars per day.Hurry and get your new knee or
new hip. Soon they won't be available to those over 50.
@RedShirt"best healthcare system"I have lived in
the States as well as other countries around the world, please dont make me
laugh. The US system is by far the worst I have had to deal with. A mountain of
studies, statistical evidence and reports back me up on that as well. You
honestly think insurance companies dont ration care? Would an insurance policy
pay out millions and millions of dollars for treatment? What are lifetime caps?
What are yearly caps? Surely an insurance company would not impose such things
right?Please list the countries you have lived on for an extended period
of time so that we can compare our experiences.@LinusI
have also lived in Canada, principally Ontario. OHIP is very appreciated, almost
all of the Canadians I knew like their health care system.Question
for everyone on here, if the US healthcare system is the greatest, most
efficient in the world, why does no other first world country implement it?
To "UT Brit" the great thing is that even if insurance companies ration
care, that doesn't stop you from getting care. You can go to any doctor
and get care. In many other nations the care is rationed, and they don't
care how much you are willing to pay.I have seen some of the
evidence that is used to make the US system look bad. However, those studies
tend to be biased and really only measure how socialized the medical system is.
So, scoring low in those studies is a good thing.I have lived in
Argentina, and in Germany. Argentina is a mess, and the German system is about
20 years behind the times in terms of procedures available.The funny
thing is that you refuse to accept the fact that the UK system is probably one
of the worst in the industrialized world. When women have to give birth in
offices, elderly at put into programs to expedite their death, and patients are
denied essential medications because the government doesn't want to pay,
you have a serious problem.
@RedShirtHa, yes higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, 40
million uninsured, highest cause of bankruptcy, 100,000 dead each year from lack
of care, twice cost per person compared to other countries, lowest number of
doctors and nurses per 1000, lifetime caps, denial of insurance because of pre
existing conditions............. All those things above are the sign
of the best healthcare system in the world! Curse those socialism baised
studies!I have never waited so long to see a doctor in an ER than
when I was in the States. Never have I waited so long to see a specialist. Oh
and go to your doctor and say that you will not be paying for any of his time or
treatment and see where that gets you. Think you will be headed to the ER and
joining the queue.You are trying to argue with the wrong man here
Redshirt, I will take the NHS over the insurance companies I had to deal with
everytime. Also you do realise that there is a two tier system in the UK right?
Well obviously not.
To "UT Brit" I am glad to see that you agree that the socialist biased
studies do exist, that is better than most liberals on this site.If
you want to look at the system, lets look at outcomes. The US has the highest
cancer survival rate in the world. They also have the most advanced medical
procedures and medicines available. When you factor out the accidental deaths,
the US has the greatest life expectancy in the world.Lets look at
the NHS. It is documented that the hospices are underfunded and cannot properly
care for their patients. The wait for certain arthritus medications means that
400,000 have lifetime pain, that could have been prevented. Babies born at 23
weeks or younger are left to die. Elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer
are denied treatment. Government funded hospitals lack the staff to bring
patients water, let alone care for them. The UK allows 130,000 people to die
each year because treatment is too expensive.You can keep the NHS, I
will take a system that is not known for killing people or leaving them in pain
for their lifetimes.
@RedshirtSome types of cancers, not all of them, you also include
the false positives in your stats as well.One of my children was
born at around 23 weeks and is alive and well today, she wasnt born in an office
either.The US still has the worst life expectancy when you factor in
accidental deaths, look at the stats. You have some of the worst heart disease
outcomes, worst pre natal and antenatal care and some of the worst results for
general health in the first world.You can keep putting your fingers
in your ears and keeping chanting "We are the best" over and over, but
my own experiences, the experiences of my friends and all the
"socialised" studies you keep pretending have some sort of bias (they
arent, look at the numbers) prove that it isnt. You have not done much
travelling, take it from someone who has, the US healthcare system is terrible.
Why are so many millions of people begging for reform? Why did the ACA come
through?Maybe one day the US will join the rest of the first world
and get some sort of UHC.
To "UT Brit" you are ignoring the fact that if you have cancer, your
best chances of survival are in the US.If hte UK system is so great,
why are they cancelling operations because the hospitals don't have any
beds? See "NHS bed blocking increases to highest level in three years"
in the Telegraph and "Lack of beds sees Welsh hospitals cancel 2,500
operations in period of just months, admits NHS boss" at WalesOnline. There
we find that not only are people having to wait for important surgeries and for
cancer treatments. Where is your concern for the damage that does by delaying
surgery?Actually, there were not "millions" begging for the
reform that the ACA gave. Millions wanted the government to make insurance
cheaper. The ACA was pushed through contrary to will of the people. Over 60%
of the US did not approve of the ACA.It doesn't take first hand
experience to see the failure of UHC systems throughout the world.Why would the US want to join the world on UHC, when much of the world with
UHC is going back to a US type system?
"version of a 1955 Pontiac. It’s large, expensive to own and maintain,
and burdened with features many customers don’t want. It’s also
likely to rust out in about three years."I thought Bennett was