Chef Jim Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Can you cite these existing national HC systems that are demonstrably better? Just stack up eight or nine of them. Begin. And has as large a population and can keep their defense spending to a minimum because of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) So all the naysayers against a national HC system....how does your argument stack up against the demonstrable evidence of all the other national HC systems that exist already that are pretty much better than what we have in almost every metric? You are arguing with ghosts.... Buddy, the only ghost here is you. You don't get to post another thing is in this thread until you speak to the 50+ times you've been either proven wrong, or asked a question, or explain where the F you get your data from. All you do us show up, drop another pile of nonsense, and then run away for 3 damn months, only to repeat the process. Like I said: you're the ghost. LABillz is fooling himself if he thinks you're gonna answer his question, with demonstrable fact, and not cooked F'ing books. And know that the facts I possess on HC are legion, I am ready to destroy your silly arguments, as I already have numerous times. Let's start with the "per capita spending" argument. What about the "illegal but condoned" side payments? What about the reality: the government pays X, but, X it is supplemented by racketeering and influence peddling by HC providers, their government partners in crime, and of course the government and labor unions? If you are Joe Blow that needs a kidney, you're gonna die. If you are the Assistant to the Minister of the Foreign Office, you get choppered in, and treated within 24 hours. But, please, tell me again how that is better, or, I'll even take "different", than our system. You can't. You can't because what goes on in socialized medicine is the exact same as here. There is no difference in terms of preferential treatment, the only thing socialized medicine does is make things cost more...because the government takes MORE $ out of the system than our private insurers do, and pays out less. They do that by cooking the F'ng books via fees and taxes that they don't include in their reports. IN FACT "government insurance" in these countries IS government insurance...meaning it is for the government, their employees, and their allies. You think a big firm like Mercedes Benz in Germany subjects its employees to the national system, and that's it? No. So, what they have is a corrupt national service whose job it to cater to the Pigs, and get around to the other animals if/when there is time and resources, operating right alongside a private system who can charge a premium to their customers because those customers have few choices. They have few choices because the government takes a big cut out of the private system insurers/providers, in return for picking them as the winners and... ...OMG....they don't count any of the private system as "per capita spending". All of this leads to absolutely ZERO motivation for anyone to control costs. That is the reality of "all other national HC systems". I have the data to prove it. Hell, I have the damn clients to prove it. How about we ask, again: If national HC programs are so successful, why does EVERY single IT job, advertised in every single country with national HC systems(certainly any of the countries on your list), state "Private Insurance" as a benefit? Why do they need to entice employees with private insurance, since they already have wonderful national plans? Why? You can't answer that either...and remain a serious person. Last question stolen from DC_Tom: what kind of engineer are you? Sanitation? Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Maybe we should stop letting patients to come to this country for treatment of maladies that their own country's doctors/healthcare don't/won't provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 LABillz is fooling himself if he thinks you're gonna answer his question, with demonstrable fact, and not cooked F'ing books. Believe me, I know better than to think he'll answer the question because I know that he can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) Maybe we should stop letting patients to come to this country for treatment of maladies that their own country's doctors/healthcare don't/won't provide. Why would we do that? They can afford to pay top $....since they are the brother-in-laws of the Minister of DoucheFWhatever. I don't see why we would stiff our docs out of that $. But...wait...coming soon: the government will find a way to tax the doctors for providing these out of state services. That's the new thing now. They already didn't want insurance to be sold over state lines, because it would destroy all the union health insurance companies instantly. Now, they don't even want out of state care, because it screws up the awful business models of the plans, which the "exchanges" are predicated on. Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 The only thing you need to know about how great American Healthcare is compared to other nations, is the fact that we produce, and share (for free), more medical patents than the rest of the world combined, times three. The reason why that socialized medicine is cheap? Because they can ignore research and development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 EIGHT MORE OBAMACARE CO-OPS TO FAIL: By the end of 2016, odds are only one or two of the original 23 non-profit health insurance providers Obama promised would make for-profit insurers lower prices and improve services will still be around. And the price of this predictably failed experiment is $2.5 billion, plus an incalculable opportunity cost. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group’s Richard Pollock has the details, as he has from the very beginning of the co-op epoch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 And...United Healthcare has started pulling out of Obamacrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) And has as large a population and can keep their defense spending to a minimum because of us Canada, Germany, Japan, UK, France, ....we spend 18 percent of our GDP on HC - about $8000-$9000 per person per year...all these countries spend about 40-60 percent of that per person and cover everyone - from cradle to grave... Has nothing to do with defense spending - as concieveably - they actually have more to spend on HC... Look - take the blinders off - there are plenty of examples of better ways to do things...our system of paying for HC (burdening our private and public employers) and delivering (reimburse able insurance model) could not be worse... The method of doing better is examining "best practices" and adopting them... The only thing you need to know about how great American Healthcare is compared to other nations, is the fact that we produce, and share (for free), more medical patents than the rest of the world combined, times three. The reason why that socialized medicine is cheap? Because they can ignore research and development. Not really - might be one component - but not a major one.....the sharing part is a little general - US companies use their patents abroad - but the sale prices are negotiated - which was a delete from the ACA.... Edited April 11, 2016 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Canada, Germany, Japan, UK, France, ....we spend 18 percent of our GDP on HC - about $8000-$9000 per person per year...all these countries spend about 40-60 percent of that per person and cover everyone - from cradle to grave... Has nothing to do with defense spending - as concieveably - they actually have more to spend on HC... Look - take the blinders off - there are plenty of examples of better ways to do things...our system of paying for HC (burdening our private and public employers) and delivering (reimburse able insurance model) could not be worse... The method of doing better is examining "best practices" and adopting them... Not really - might be one component - but not a major one.....the sharing part is a little general - US companies use their patents abroad - but the sale prices are negotiated - which was a delete from the ACA.... There are better ways of doing things than the ACA and the former status quo, but the Dems would have none of it. They were just hell bent for leather to ram this abortion down our throats. Big pharma gets pilloried because the cost of ethical pharmaceuticals is so high in this country. The bolded from your post is exactly what happens overseas by the various regulatory agencies - they arbitrarily set the price that they will pay for the drugs. That leaves pharmas to recover their R&D costs where? Right. Right here in the USA. Ergo, Americans are footing the bill for the rest of the world to have new drugs discovered and used at cut rate prices on people in other countries - including Canuckistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 ObamaCare has been taking lots of hits lately, but a new report from the Congressional Budget Office is a gut punch. It shows that ObamaCare’s outlook has worsened considerably as fewer people sign up and costs rise more than expected. To little fanfare and virtually no media coverage, the Congressional Budget Office sharply downgraded its forecast for ObamaCare in its latest report, issued in late March. By just about every measure, things are looking worse than they did a year ago. First, the CBO has cut enrollment goals for the ObamaCare exchanges. Its March 2015 report projected that enrollment would top out at 22 million. Now it puts the ceiling at 18 million. And given ObamaCare’s track record so far, even that’s optimistic. Lower enrollment numbers should mean lower taxpayer costs, since fewer people will be getting taxpayer-subsidized insurance. But higher-than-expected insurance subsidies are soaking up much of those savings. Last year, CBO projected that the average subsidy would be $4,040. Turns out, it was $4,240. CBO now thinks subsidies will average $4,550 next year instead of $4,250. That is likely a reflection of the fact that premiums leapt upward this year, and are likely to make another big jump for next year. As a result, even though the CBO expects that 4 million fewer people will be getting insurance subsidies in 2024, the total cost of those subsidies paid out that year will stay exactly the same: $99 billion. ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is also turning out to be far more expensive than planned, forcing the CBO to hike its 10-year Medicaid cost projection by $146 billion. That’s largely the result of far more people signing up for Medicaid — 2 to 4 million more — than the CBO had previously expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 ObamaCare has been taking lots of hits lately, but a new report from the Congressional Budget Office is a gut punch. It shows that ObamaCare’s outlook has worsened considerably as fewer people sign up and costs rise more than expected. To little fanfare and virtually no media coverage, the Congressional Budget Office sharply downgraded its forecast for ObamaCare in its latest report, issued in late March. By just about every measure, things are looking worse than they did a year ago. First, the CBO has cut enrollment goals for the ObamaCare exchanges. Its March 2015 report projected that enrollment would top out at 22 million. Now it puts the ceiling at 18 million. And given ObamaCare’s track record so far, even that’s optimistic. Lower enrollment numbers should mean lower taxpayer costs, since fewer people will be getting taxpayer-subsidized insurance. But higher-than-expected insurance subsidies are soaking up much of those savings. Last year, CBO projected that the average subsidy would be $4,040. Turns out, it was $4,240. CBO now thinks subsidies will average $4,550 next year instead of $4,250. That is likely a reflection of the fact that premiums leapt upward this year, and are likely to make another big jump for next year. As a result, even though the CBO expects that 4 million fewer people will be getting insurance subsidies in 2024, the total cost of those subsidies paid out that year will stay exactly the same: $99 billion. ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is also turning out to be far more expensive than planned, forcing the CBO to hike its 10-year Medicaid cost projection by $146 billion. That’s largely the result of far more people signing up for Medicaid — 2 to 4 million more — than the CBO had previously expected. And today's propaganda garbage is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 There are better ways of doing things than the ACA and the former status quo, but the Dems would have none of it. They were just hell bent for leather to ram this abortion down our throats. Big pharma gets pilloried because the cost of ethical pharmaceuticals is so high in this country. The bolded from your post is exactly what happens overseas by the various regulatory agencies - they arbitrarily set the price that they will pay for the drugs. That leaves pharmas to recover their R&D costs where? Right. Right here in the USA. Ergo, Americans are footing the bill for the rest of the world to have new drugs discovered and used at cut rate prices on people in other countries - including Canuckistan. what is an "ethical pharmaceutical"/? what would happen if excess us dollars dried up and the r&d subsidy was taken off the backs of sick americans? I think the solution would be gov't sponsored r&d on a global basis. drugs for development could be targeted for need rather than profit. we then wouldn't end up with 14 drugs for cholesterol in the same class, 4 for erections and 1 for life threatening complication of aids ( that can be used to rip off dying pt's at outrageous prices), as we recently witnessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 And today's propaganda garbage is... So let me get this right...the CBO -- which was used on a regular basis by this administration to justify the passing of ACA -- gives an honest assessment of honest numbers, and suddenly it's propaganda? Please explain -- in your own words -- how the CBO is propaganda. We'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 ...and wait...and wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 So let me get this right...the CBO -- which was used on a regular basis by this administration to justify the passing of ACA -- gives an honest assessment of honest numbers, and suddenly it's propaganda? Please explain -- in your own words -- how the CBO is propaganda. We'll wait. Well seeing his post was 3 minutes after B-Man's it's safe to assume he didn't read the CBO report. Not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Well seeing his post was 3 minutes after B-Man's it's safe to assume he didn't read the CBO report. Not surprising. Why did you respond to his post? Did you read the CBO report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 So let me get this right...the CBO -- which was used on a regular basis by this administration to justify the passing of ACA -- gives an honest assessment of honest numbers, and suddenly it's propaganda? Please explain -- in your own words -- how the CBO is propaganda. We'll wait. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 what is an "ethical pharmaceutical"/? what would happen if excess us dollars dried up and the r&d subsidy was taken off the backs of sick americans? I think the solution would be gov't sponsored r&d on a global basis. drugs for development could be targeted for need rather than profit. we then wouldn't end up with 14 drugs for cholesterol in the same class, 4 for erections and 1 for life threatening complication of aids ( that can be used to rip off dying pt's at outrageous prices), as we recently witnessed. Figures you wouldn't know. It's the proper term, but I'm sure you're just kidding me, you're so learned. As to "excess dollars" you mean the hundreds of millions of dollars that are sunk costs when drugs have trials run worldwide and fall short of FDA approval causing the companies to walk away with nothing but a financial loss? Those costs? Oh, you mean the payoffs to MDs so they'll prescribe the company's drugs? Pharma reps can't hardly give a Dr. a pen or a coffee cup these days. The number of drugs that are brought to market is a reflection of market forces. Pharms often shut down promising studies because their internal marketing studies foretell they will not recoup the development, packaging, distribution, and marketing costs. Or the patent will run out before they can bring it to market and the jackal generic manufacturers will copy their intellectual property without doing a pennies worth of R&D. That's fair. The NIH does sponsor drug discovery already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Why did you respond to his post? Did you read the CBO report? No. I wasn't commenting on the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts