US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

[Jocabia]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

For the lines and waiting, this is not going to be Canada where they have banned insurance companies so your argument is mute.

A good number of them (it is close to impossible to estimate actual numbers) will be unable to compete. Because of a significantly lower cost of the public option. And the fact that insurers will be taxed. And to pay for the program, they will tax private health insurers (increasing their cost, causing more people to drop coverage and join the public option).

So? Why is that bad?

You do realize that the government offers cleaner water for free and without issues and companies still manage to sell it very successfully. If insurance companies can provide a better product (or the appearance of a better product) then they will beat the public option.

It's amusing that in the same breath you complain about a decrease in quality of care with government systems like Canada and then complain that insurance companies can't compete. How bad must insurance companies be that people would prefer to wait in line with the government option?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

If we arent proposing FREE health care tell me exactly how the homeless guy on the street with 2 quarters in his pocket, is going to get healthcare? He gets cancer. What now? He buys insurance for $.50? Goes into the cancer clinic?

If he does not have to pay for the healthcare he gets, that, by definition is FREE. UNLESS, of course, you ban CHARGING for healthcare, then there is a PRICE, just $0.00.

[Brewdomia]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

It's obviously some evil Liberal Conspiracy.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

Waiting time increase - thank you for admitting it.
Decrease of cost of services - how do we know, it is not because of lower quality? We can decrease costs by other means.
Increase of result - do you mean more people covered? If not, please elaborate.
I never said, what we have now is the prefect system, and needs no reform.

Um, you do realize we're not all arguing about the same thing, right? Trying to paint your opposition as all one person just so you can strike the weakest is a weak strategy and won't work. Do better.

We know that we pay more than the rest of the world with similar economic systems but healthcare systems more like we propose. There is tons more evidence of a decrease in cost than there is for your claimed decrease in the standard of living.

The increase in result is that universal systems tend use preventive care. Any expert in preventive care (and it doesn't have to be healthcare, ask a maintenance organization about the value of preventive care on their equipment) will tell you that preventive care is cheaper than emergent care. It's provable that our system encourages emergent care over preventive care and I provided a source for that. Also, we can expect an improved life expectancy and infant mortality given that every system that does better than us provides universal care and focuses on preventive care (which again is a definitive reason for increase in quality of life).

I thought the CBO letter to Congress back in August put a lid on the "preventive care costs less" argument, when they stated quite clearly that the expanded use of preventive care leads to higher overall expenditures on medical care.

[Jocabia]

Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

I Object: Appeal to Emotion

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

Thanks. I hope you dont consider WebMD a blog cause:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200807 ... by-country

Says that American cancer survival rates exceed that of other countries.
"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD."

Here too in pictures even:
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interfac ... tes39.html

And? Why is that you can't address the overall problem? Americans are not surviving in general for longer than those of other countries of comparable economic status. Our life expectancy is lower. Showing that we are more likely to survive cancer won't address that. Showing that we are more likely to survive scabies won't address that. Show that we are more likely to survive in general or admit you cannot.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

[Sibirsky]

Still wondering if any of the idiots in Washington notice that every time they start talking about screwing with health care, their numbers get WORSE... especially the ones that are pushing the hardest and listening the least?

But then again, Washington is just as disconnected from the populace which the lord over as Rome ever was... and Washington will face the same fall- sooner rather than later if they do not stop running the country bankrupt. As much as bastard as he was, Wallace was right- there's not a dime's difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both want to rob you; they just use different excuses.

I am afraid it is already too late. Over the coming decades the standard of living will decline by 25% or more. More if cap and trade is passed.

You're not a fortune-teller. What you can show that happens today, or happened yesterday is fair game.

Your prophecy is cute, but not evidence.


As it happens, I basically agree with you about the decline in standard of living- but possibly not for the same reasons.

At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

Standard of living? Will decline? May I ask how you know?

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

That's economics. Liberals and economics do not mix.

Ah, and here we go. Your arguments failed so now you're resorting to insults.

You don't notice that the person you're now cheerleading isn't actually talking about the system being proposed or making a remotely valid comparison? Any friend in a firefight, eh?

Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

[Peisandros]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

Can you?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

I did, earlier in this thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

[Sibirsky]

Still wondering if any of the idiots in Washington notice that every time they start talking about screwing with health care, their numbers get WORSE... especially the ones that are pushing the hardest and listening the least?

But then again, Washington is just as disconnected from the populace which the lord over as Rome ever was... and Washington will face the same fall- sooner rather than later if they do not stop running the country bankrupt. As much as bastard as he was, Wallace was right- there's not a dime's difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both want to rob you; they just use different excuses.

I am afraid it is already too late. Over the coming decades the standard of living will decline by 25% or more. More if cap and trade is passed.

You're not a fortune-teller. What you can show that happens today, or happened yesterday is fair game.

Your prophecy is cute, but not evidence.


As it happens, I basically agree with you about the decline in standard of living- but possibly not for the same reasons.

At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

Standard of living? Will decline? May I ask how you know?

How will the standard of living improve? Name one policy recently enacted, or proposed that will improve it. It will decline, because of a number of things. Not all of them may come true, but enough (I so fucking hope I am wrong) of them to decline the standard of living. Debt. Immense debt. Which will cause higher taxes. Which will cause lower growth. A declining dollar. Caused by this massive spending. High inflation. Caused by this massive spending. Loss of jobs caused by higher taxes and the coming cap and trade bill (if it gets passed).

All evidence suggests that a universal system will increase our general health. That's an increase in the standard of living. Frankly, I don't care if I can afford a fourth television if I have to run the risk of being bankrupted or killed by our healthcare system.

Ok I'll you give you that increase. But I will point out, that it does not address costs. It will be much mote expensive than proposed. And other programs will help decrease the standard of living.

[Jocabia]

Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

Can you?

It's already been stipulated that the US leads the world in easy to cure cancers. I'm asking for some proof that Sweden and any other countries can meet the survival rates that exist in the US.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Ok I'll you give you that increase. But I will point out, that it does not address costs. It will be much mote expensive than proposed. And other programs will help decrease the standard of living.

I would gladly sacrifice a percentage point or two of GDP growth every year in exchange for health care for everybody.

[Jocabia]

Ok I'll you give you that increase. But I will point out, that it does not address costs. It will be much mote expensive than proposed. And other programs will help decrease the standard of living.

I love how you agree to that increase and then wave it away with your hand. What possible increase could be more important?

As far as other programs, start a blog. Or, you know, actually create another thread. This thread is about healthcare and you just conceded the point.

[Sibirsky]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

Plenty and abound. Really, there is no question based just on the Canadian health tourism industry to the US. Obviously, Canadians with means to pay for it, but it happens. Because of the shorter wait times. On average, Canada has 1 MRI machine per 2 million residents, vs the US' 160 thousand. Try to get an MRI real quick in Canada

Canada is one country with a pretty fucked up system. If that's the only source you have, it's amazingly ignorant.

It was an obvious and easiest example. First of all the liberals adore the Canadian system and use it in example all the time. Why can't I? Second of all, it is an obvious choice, for travel to the US. You, know for some of them it being a 20 minute trip.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

If we arent proposing FREE health care tell me exactly how the homeless guy on the street with 2 quarters in his pocket, is going to get healthcare? He gets cancer. What now? He buys insurance for $.50? Goes into the cancer clinic?

If he does not have to pay for the healthcare he gets, that, by definition is FREE. UNLESS, of course, you ban CHARGING for healthcare, then there is a PRICE, just $0.00.

Jocabia, will you address this please?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

I did, earlier in this thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

I guess... It's a hell of an indictment of the UK, though. But tell me this... Why does a small difference in life expectancy, or infant mortality count for so much, but a couple percentage points in cancer survival rates count for so little? Is it because of the relative position of the US in those studies?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

It was an obvious and easiest example. First of all the liberals adore the Canadian system and use it in example all the time. Why can't I? Second of all, it is an obvious choice, for travel to the US. You, know for some of them it being a 20 minute trip.

Except that you have to be, you know, Canadian to use it.

[Sibirsky]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

Waiting time increase - thank you for admitting it.
Decrease of cost of services - how do we know, it is not because of lower quality? We can decrease costs by other means.
Increase of result - do you mean more people covered? If not, please elaborate.
I never said, what we have now is the prefect system, and needs no reform.

Um, you do realize we're not all arguing about the same thing, right? Trying to paint your opposition as all one person just so you can strike the weakest is a weak strategy and won't work. Do better.

We know that we pay more than the rest of the world with similar economic systems but healthcare systems more like we propose. There is tons more evidence of a decrease in cost than there is for your claimed decrease in the standard of living.

The increase in result is that universal systems tend use preventive care. Any expert in preventive care (and it doesn't have to be healthcare, ask a maintenance organization about the value of preventive care on their equipment) will tell you that preventive care is cheaper than emergent care. It's provable that our system encourages emergent care over preventive care and I provided a source for that. Also, we can expect an improved life expectancy and infant mortality given that every system that does better than us provides universal care and focuses on preventive care (which again is a definitive reason for increase in quality of life).

I am not arguing against preventive care. I am arguing against the government providing it.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

It was an obvious and easiest example. First of all the liberals adore the Canadian system and use it in example all the time. Why can't I? Second of all, it is an obvious choice, for travel to the US. You, know for some of them it being a 20 minute trip.

Except that you have to be, you know, Canadian to use it.

I don't suppose we'll have that restriction -- substituting US citizen for Canadian, that is.

[Sibirsky]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

For the lines and waiting, this is not going to be Canada where they have banned insurance companies so your argument is mute.

A good number of them (it is close to impossible to estimate actual numbers) will be unable to compete. Because of a significantly lower cost of the public option. And the fact that insurers will be taxed. And to pay for the program, they will tax private health insurers (increasing their cost, causing more people to drop coverage and join the public option).

So? Why is that bad?

You do realize that the government offers cleaner water for free and without issues and companies still manage to sell it very successfully. If insurance companies can provide a better product (or the appearance of a better product) then they will beat the public option.

It's amusing that in the same breath you complain about a decrease in quality of care with government systems like Canada and then complain that insurance companies can't compete. How bad must insurance companies be that people would prefer to wait in line with the government option?

I am saying they won't be able to compete on price. A number of people simply will not be able to afford private insurance. A number of others will not be willing to pay the higher cost.