|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
08-24-2010, 02:24 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).
|
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
I would also challenge you on a couple of points:
First, that single - payer is disconnected from the regulatory enviroment. Rather, single - payer is the ultimate regulation of the health care delivery system. It removes the free market almost completely from the equation, and fully regulates the delivery of care in the market: who can deliver care, under what circumstances the care can be delivered, the timing of the delivery of care, and the cost of delivery.
Second, that PPACA is "little more that re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. PPACA does little in the near term to impact the delivery of health care. It gets at cost in a rather hopeful way - that requiring individuals to purchase health care will increase improve overall funding by increasing the amount of incoming premium dollars. I'd suggest that there are still plenty of holes in the funding scenario that could likely result in further - you guessed it - regulatory intervention to plug the holes.
PPACA utlimtely could change how most poeple in this country buy health insurance. In the extreme, it could signficantly reduce the number of individuals who buy health insurance in the group market from an employer. On its face, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I've often said that if I were King for a day, I'd outlaw employer sponsored group health insurance. (I might even go so far as to outlaw health insurance, but that's a whole differnent thread). It creates an uneven playing field where the largest groups can puchase coverage more economically than smaller groups, and subjects small groups to more unpredictable year over year health insurance premium cost increases. PPACA doesn't necessarily solve this. It does, however, create a powerful incentive for employers - and I'd suggest in partcilular smaller employers - to get out of providing group health insurance coverage. This could result in dramatic change in how the health insurance market, and ultimately the health care delivery system, might operate.
|
08-24-2010, 02:47 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
[QUOTE=noonereal;37290]
Overall I'd say your post was a bunch of BS.
QUOTE]
Why, thank you.
|
08-24-2010, 03:08 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
I would also challenge you on a couple of points:
First, that single - payer is disconnected from the regulatory enviroment. Rather, single - payer is the ultimate regulation of the health care delivery system. It removes the free market almost completely from the equation, and fully regulates the delivery of care in the market: who can deliver care, under what circumstances the care can be delivered, the timing of the delivery of care, and the cost of delivery.
Second, that PPACA is "little more that re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. PPACA does little in the near term to impact the delivery of health care. It gets at cost in a rather hopeful way - that requiring individuals to purchase health care will increase improve overall funding by increasing the amount of incoming premium dollars. I'd suggest that there are still plenty of holes in the funding scenario that could likely result in further - you guessed it - regulatory intervention to plug the holes.
PPACA utlimtely could change how most poeple in this country buy health insurance. In the extreme, it could signficantly reduce the number of individuals who buy health insurance in the group market from an employer. On its face, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I've often said that if I were King for a day, I'd outlaw employer sponsored group health insurance. (I might even go so far as to outlaw health insurance, but that's a whole differnent thread). It creates an uneven playing field where the largest groups can puchase coverage more economically than smaller groups, and subjects small groups to more unpredictable year over year health insurance premium cost increases. PPACA doesn't necessarily solve this. It does, however, create a powerful incentive for employers - and I'd suggest in partcilular smaller employers - to get out of providing group health insurance coverage. This could result in dramatic change in how the health insurance market, and ultimately the health care delivery system, might operate.
|
the best insurance in the US today is Medicare, a single payer system.
|
08-24-2010, 03:10 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
[QUOTE=whell;37292]
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Overall I'd say your post was a bunch of Hooey.
QUOTE]
Why, thank you.
|
great reply, thanks (all thoese questions and you only decide to comment on this? )
btw I meant to put Hooey, your post sounded like a bunch of hooey but I was not sure how to spell it.
Last edited by noonereal; 08-24-2010 at 03:14 PM.
|
08-24-2010, 03:16 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Of course I am not in the industry. In fact once I became ill I lost all medical coverage so maybe I am unaware of the great healthcare industry.
|
It can be extremely difficult to maintain objectvity in a discussion about the broad topic of health care. It can be a very personal, emotional topic for many. However, if there is any hope at arriving at a well conceived set of solutions about the issues in the health care system, objectivity has to be the starting point for the discussion.
The "health care issue" is tremendously complex. Folks tend to lump health care delivery together with health insurance and view it all as one common problem. They are very different issues, and both would have their own unique set of solutions.
|
08-24-2010, 03:36 PM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
|
What an absolute load of crap. The Canadian system is not now, never was known as "Medicare" the authors appear to be totally confused, they must have gotten their information from Grassley and Hatch.
The Single Payer system is a health insurance system with a single insurer. Like any other insurance company they tell you what they will pay for and what they will not pay for. Even doctors in Canada get confused and at one point a group of doctors in Alberta asked the system to buy them an MRI machine. The response was that if they thought they could profitably operate such a machine they were perfectly free to buy one. Does Aetna buy MRI machines?
I could recount experiences of my family still in Canada but it probably would be a waste of time. I will simply suggest that you try the WHO site and see where Canadians stand vis-a-vis Americans. I believe you will find they live longer, have fewer strokes or heart attacks and the infant mortality rate is lower. BTW no Canadian was ever forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses.
If anyone there is considering abandoning single payer for a system like ours it would have to be that barking idiot Harper.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-24-2010, 03:53 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
What an absolute load of crap. The Canadian system is not now, never was known as "Medicare" the authors appear to be totally confused, they must have gotten their information from Grassley and Hatch.
|
Dang. Grassley and Hatch are everywhere. They've even infiltrated Health Canada's web page, who seem to acknowledge the "medicare" reference.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index-eng.php
|
08-24-2010, 03:54 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
It can be extremely difficult to maintain objectvity in a discussion about the broad topic of health care. It can be a very personal, emotional topic for many. However, if there is any hope at arriving at a well conceived set of solutions about the issues in the health care system, objectivity has to be the starting point for the discussion.
The "health care issue" is tremendously complex. Folks tend to lump health care delivery together with health insurance and view it all as one common problem. They are very different issues, and both would have their own unique set of solutions.
|
so you have disqualified me from discussion because I am ill?
That is handy.
Was I disqualified when I paid over $15,000 a year for what amounted to catastrophic insurance for my daughter and I also?
You who has a vested interest in healthcare can discuss it objectively?
what a crock, a real Palin moment.
|
08-24-2010, 03:55 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
I believe you will find they live longer, have fewer strokes or heart attacks and the infant mortality rate is lower. BTW no Canadian was ever forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses.
|
If you read the article on the link that I posted, you'd see that these facts are acknowledged in the article as well. It also provides reasons why this might be the case: reasons that are disconnected from the delivery of health care in Canada.
Last edited by whell; 08-24-2010 at 03:58 PM.
|
08-24-2010, 03:57 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
so you have disqualified me from discussion because I am ill?
That is handy.
Was I disqualified when I paid over $15,000 a year for what amounted to catastrophic insurance for my daughter and I also?
You who has a vested interest in healthcare can discuss it objectively?
what a crock, a real Palin moment.
|
At what point did I "disqualify" you? I acknowledged that individuals bring their own experiences to the discussion which generate emotional responses. I simply suggested that emotionalism doesn't necessarily lead to constructive solutions.
Reading my posts rather than reacting to what you think my "agenda" might be could lead to a more productive discussion.
Last edited by whell; 08-24-2010 at 04:00 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 PM.
|