Democrat's Health plan flowchart

[Alaska Darin]

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law

 

As a citizen you are entitled by the social contract you have with your government to have the police serve and protect you as best as they can. You can sue a police department it happens all the time (Mostly in police brutality cases but there have been cases where people have sued police departments for ignoring a victim of a crime granted its hard to do but it has been done)

You know it's been done? How about a little proof to back it up?

 

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

 

In 2005 (Gonzales v. Castle Rock), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

So now you need to come up with ONE example to the contrary. Good luck.

 

I feel if we trust our own government with nuclear weapons and to put up the worlds best defense apparatus than I think they can run a hospital system. If you harness the amount of money companies and individuals pay on private insurance and put that into a public plan for good coverage for everyone I think it on paper could work.

Life doesn't exist on paper. The government already manages health care for selected individuals. Ever hear of Walter Reed Army Medical Center? Any controversy involving the VA or military health care in general? Reality says that the government does things very inefficiently for a price that is significantly higher than the market.

 

There are a variety of steps to try before we simple stand aside and make the government even bigger and more powerful.

Also as I have said already we pay up the nose for a system that is already 39-57% funded by public money. So why not just pick up the rest of the tab and have a better simpler system.

Nice dream world.

[billsfan89]

They're not doing a very good job of it, so lets give them a bigger job.

 

Yeah so lets let a business who benefits from find a way to not treat their clients continue to run the system and if you aren't insured or are under insured tough sh-- take better care of yourself Free Market has spoken. The reason the government hasn't done a good job at health insurance (Other than Military Hospitals and Medicate) is because they can't have it both ways either you go fully private or fully government you simply can't go 50/50.

[billsfan89]

You know it's been done? How about a little proof to back it up?

 

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

 

In 2005 (Gonzales v. Castle Rock), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

So now you need to come up with ONE example to the contrary. Good luck.

 

 

Life doesn't exist on paper. The government already manages health care for selected individuals. Ever hear of Walter Reed Army Medical Center? Any controversy involving the VA or military health care in general? Reality says that the government does things very inefficiently for a price that is significantly higher than the market.

 

There are a variety of steps to try before we simple stand aside and make the government even bigger and more powerful.

 

Nice dream world.

 

Its true that the police have certain immunities against prosecution in order to avoid being over sued there still remains ways to sue the police and protect your rights. You have a right for the police to protect you even if the police can't get sued you fundamentally have a right for the police to serve and protect. If they do not do this they can suffer consequences.

 

But anyway I was mistaken about suing the police for lack of protection but you can sue the police for many other reasons proving that there is a standard for the protection you can receive.

 

Back on to health care the reason the government isn't doing a good job because they are trying to function within a system that has business interests. Either its government run or its privately run. government inefficiency is found in instances where government tries to have it both ways where they have a more than regulatory hand in private matters.

 

If life doesn't exist on paper than what does exist?

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't doubt some of your points like why is Obama having such a sense of urgency when it comes to reform. But that one point about universal health coverage leading to people not caring about their health is specious logic.

Wrong. Eight ways till Sunday wrong. Please explain why insurance rates for non-smokers are less then. Apparently the insurance companies use the same specious logic to determine premium rates...but they are all idiots right? Yeah, they don't reward the individuals who take care of themselves, they simply give out the same insurance rates to everyone.

 

You don't want to talk about poor people? Ok, how about rich ones? Apparently you haven't seen just how poorly most corporate execs take care of themselves, knowing fully that not only do they have gold plated insurance, but that they can get themselves on the short list for organ transplants as well. I have seen this right in front of me, on multiple occasions. Most memorably the liver transplant guys continuing to belly up to the bar.

 

Look this was a bad LONG TERM idea when Kaiser, the WWII boat builder, first hooked up Dr. Permanente, and has been a bad idea ever since. During WWII you had literally 10s of thousands of workers descending on shipyards practically overnight. Something had to be done to care for these workers, because, they had to keep building ships so we could win the war. All other things became secondary concerns, especially whether this new "health insurance" plan was actually saving money. At that time of crisis, it made sense to centralize the health care of those workers because the care could be organized and distributed better, and because we were going from nothing to 50k people showing up. There was no way they would think of doing deductibles, because you would have to hire 1k accountants and clerks just to figure that out a that time. Also, due to FDR's wage controls, Kaiser thought that "free health care" would get him more and better workers, because he could only pay them the fixed wage. So, it made sense as a SHORT TERM solution.

 

3 things about that group of insured people that simply cannot be said about insuring everyone today: they did manual labor 8 hours minimum a day = exercise, and, they all had a job = each worker brought in income to the company, and, each worker was relatively young and healthy = see manual labor. It doesn't take an actuary to figure out that covering that risk group is going to be a hell of lot cheaper than covering the entire population of the US. But I am sure there's something specious here...

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, Jesus, I have a stalker. Thanks for your opinion.

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone here knows that I am an equal opportunity illogical/uneducated opinion basher.

[billsfan89]

Wrong. Eight ways till Sunday wrong. Please explain why insurance rates for non-smokers are less then. Apparently the insurance companies use the same specious logic to determine premium rates...but they are all idiots right? Yeah, they don't reward the individuals who take care of themselves, they simply give out the same insurance rates to everyone.

 

You don't want to talk about poor people? Ok, how about rich ones? Apparently you haven't seen just how poorly most corporate execs take care of themselves, knowing fully that not only do they have gold plated insurance, but that they can get themselves on the short list for organ transplants as well. I have seen this right in front of me, on multiple occasions. Most memorably the liver transplant guys continuing to belly up to the bar.

 

Look this was a bad LONG TERM idea when Kaiser, the WWII boat builder, first hooked up Dr. Permanente, and has been a bad idea ever since. During WWII you had literally 10s of thousands of workers descending on shipyards practically overnight. Something had to be done to care for these workers, because, they had to keep building ships so we could win the war. All other things became secondary concerns, especially whether this new "health insurance" plan was actually saving money. At that time of crisis, it made sense to centralize the health care of those workers because the care could be organized and distributed better, and because we were going from nothing to 50k people showing up. There was no way they would think of doing deductibles, because you would have to hire 1k accountants and clerks just to figure that out a that time. Also, due to FDR's wage controls, Kaiser thought that "free health care" would get him more and better workers, because he could only pay them the fixed wage. So, it made sense as a SHORT TERM solution.

 

3 things about that group of insured people that simply cannot be said about insuring everyone today: they did manual labor 8 hours minimum a day = exercise, and, they all had a job = each worker brought in income to the company, and, each worker was relatively young and healthy = see manual labor. It doesn't take an actuary to figure out that covering that risk group is going to be a hell of lot cheaper than covering the entire population of the US. But I am sure there's something specious here...

 

Yeah I get universal health coverage so I am going to smoke now. Things like cancer magically go away and I can drink myself silly because getting an organ transplant is so easy and fun. Corporate Executives take poor care of themselves in part due to the fact they have access to everything possible in the world its not because getting a liver transplant is so easy. I doubt they think that far ahead.

 

Do people who have insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want. Diabetes and obesity won't effect me. I think dieing early is enough to keep people from not doing stupid things. We won't go from a society of health nuts to smoking fat asses because of universal health care.

 

In a universal system you can still lower payer rates for healthier people and raise rates on those who smoke and have other conditions. I pointed that out in my original post.

[GG]

Also as I have said already we pay up the nose for a system that is already 39-57% funded by public money. So why not just pick up the rest of the tab and have a better simpler system.

 

For the simple reason that that public funding is getting a free ride on the advances paid for by private funding. There's no question reform is needed. There's also no question that 100% public funding & care is the answer.

[Booster4324]

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone here knows that I am an equal opportunity illogical/uneducated opinion basher who tends to bash liberals mainly. I also have an extremely high opinion of myself and tend to relate everything to my own personal business, no matter the relevancy.

 

Fixed, now I agree.

 

[billsfan89]

For the simple reason that that public funding is getting a free ride on the advances paid for by private funding. There's no question reform is needed. There's also no question that 100% public funding & care is the answer.

 

Government isn't the answer than what is the alternative. Private sector? Thats the current system we have and it doesn't work for many Americans. What reform can you do that isn't going to be or lead to a single payer universal health care system? Should the government invest more or less into the system? If we invest more how much more and how should it be spent?

 

From my own personal experience single payer universal health care is the best solution. If it is managed right and gives rate cuts to those who live healthier life styles it could be a real solution. Does anyone else know what the alternative theoretically could be?

[Alaska Darin]

Its true that the police have certain immunities against prosecution in order to avoid being over sued there still remains ways to sue the police and protect your rights. You have a right for the police to protect you even if the police can't get sued you fundamentally have a right for the police to serve and protect. If they do not do this they can suffer consequences.

Ah, couldn't give examples. Yeah, you can file suit and spend your money but you're not going to win. Go ahead and tell us about these consequences.

But anyway I was mistaken about suing the police for lack of protection but you can sue the police for many other reasons proving that there is a standard for the protection you can receive.

How exactly does being able to sue them for things that have nothing to do with protection somehow provide a standard of protection? I can't wait to have this explained. I'm almost giddy.

Back on to health care the reason the government isn't doing a good job because they are trying to function within a system that has business interests. Either its government run or its privately run. government inefficiency is found in instances where government tries to have it both ways where they have a more than regulatory hand in private matters.

Horsecrap. There are ALWAYS going to be interests who'll band together and lobby to screw over the little guy. This "Rainbow Bright" ideology that you're attached to is seriously clouding your judgement. There are SERIOUS consequences to turning over things like health care to an entity like the Federal government.

If life doesn't exist on paper than what does exist?

I'll take "What is the Dumbest Question Anyone Asked Me Today?" for $400 please.

[billsfan89]

Ah, couldn't give examples. Yeah, you can file suit and spend your money but you're not going to win. Go ahead and tell us about these consequences.

 

How exactly does being able to sue them for things that have nothing to do with protection somehow provide a standard of protection? I can't wait to have this explained. I'm almost giddy.

 

Horsecrap. There are ALWAYS going to be interests who'll band together and lobby to screw over the little guy. This "Rainbow Bright" ideology that you're attached to is seriously clouding your judgement. There are SERIOUS consequences to turning over things like health care to an entity like the Federal government.

 

I'll take "What is the Dumbest Question Anyone Asked Me Today?" for $400 please.

 

You can sue the police for things like brutality it has happened in the past Rodney King sued the police and got 3.8 million dollars. Consequences for police actions can come in the form of internal actions and trial of officers involved in cases of things like brutality. I admitted I was wrong that there is a legal right to police protection but morally you are at a right to be protected by the best of the ability of the police.

 

What are the serious consequences for tuning over health care to the government and are those consequences worse than what is already going on? I mean there are 50 million uninsured and others under insured. While many companies continue to cut costs on coverage many more Americans continue to loose coverage or become under insured.

 

You have to ask if the government can do a better job than what is being done now not a perfect system but it will be better. What is the alternative to the system we have now that would be better than a universal system.

 

How is that a stupid quesiton last time I checked you have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness according to the Constitution.

[GG]

Government isn't the answer than what is the alternative. Private sector? Thats the current system we have and it doesn't work for many Americans. What reform can you do that isn't going to be or lead to a single payer universal health care system? Should the government invest more or less into the system? If we invest more how much more and how should it be spent?

 

From my own personal experience single payer universal health care is the best solution. If it is managed right and gives rate cuts to those who live healthier life styles it could be a real solution. Does anyone else know what the alternative theoretically could be?

 

Single payer system may have worked for you where ever you were, but it is not a sustainable system over a long term with an aging population that will provide universal care to everyone. A single payer system means that one of two rationing schemes will happen - either someone will chose the procedure for you or you will have to wait a long time for your procedure. It also will mean that innovation will occur on a much slower basis, because there will be far fewer incentives to experiment for big pharma or for venture capitalists to fund new medical ventures. But hey it's great to talk about how universal health works, while ignoring the groundbreaking science and procedures that private US healthcare funds for the rest of the world.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Single payer system may have worked for you where ever you were, but it is not a sustainable system over a long term with an aging population that will provide universal care to everyone. A single payer system means that one of two rationing schemes will happen - either someone will chose the procedure for you or you will have to wait a long time for your procedure. It also will mean that innovation will occur on a much slower basis, because there will be far fewer incentives to experiment for big pharma or for venture capitalists to fund new medical ventures. But hey it's great to talk about how universal health works, while ignoring the groundbreaking science and procedures that private US healthcare funds for the rest of the world.

 

Isn't that another big part of the problem? How is it that US Pharma can sell drugs to Canada at a low enough price that it can be re-imported to the US and sold for a lower price than someone can buy in the US?

 

I always thought that that was one of the more perverse things about people going to Canada to buy prescription drugs.

[GG]

Isn't that another big part of the problem? How is it that US Pharma can sell drugs to Canada at a low enough price that it can be re-imported to the US and sold for a lower price than someone can buy in the US?

 

I always thought that that was one of the more perverse things about people going to Canada to buy prescription drugs.

 

Another Canadian free ride. Canada mandates price controls and pharma cos oblige knowing that most profits come from US. Once US institutes price controls, then prices for the rest of the world will have to rise, or the rest of the world will have to get by on drugs that don't have patents on them. If Congress was honest, they would roll in drug price controls into NAFTA as it's the equivalent of a subsidy to Canadian healthcare industry.

[billsfan89]

Single payer system may have worked for you where ever you were, but it is not a sustainable system over a long term with an aging population that will provide universal care to everyone. A single payer system means that one of two rationing schemes will happen - either someone will chose the procedure for you or you will have to wait a long time for your procedure. It also will mean that innovation will occur on a much slower basis, because there will be far fewer incentives to experiment for big pharma or for venture capitalists to fund new medical ventures. But hey it's great to talk about how universal health works, while ignoring the groundbreaking science and procedures that private US healthcare funds for the rest of the world.

 

Well what is the alternative to our system. Or do we just accept our system as is and say free market has spoken too bad if you are uninsured. But what do you do if you want reform but not a single payer system? Honestly If you can theoretically tell me a system that would be better than our current one and better than a single payer one I would be all to hear it out but as it stands we pay for 39-57% of our health care system so health costs are already being supplemented publicly.

 

And why would a single payer system in America work like a single payer system in Canada or somewhere else in the world. Why can't we have a universal system that works better than the rest of the world. Our military is better run and funded than any other country in the world so why couldn't our heath care system be better.

 

We spend more in terms of percentage of GDP than any other country in the world so why can't we have the best health care system for all. Yes our system is the most innovative but can't we try and keep that innovation with a universal system?

[GG]

Well what is the alternative to our system. Or do we just accept our system as is and say free market has spoken too bad if you are uninsured. But what do you do if you want reform but not a single payer system? Honestly If you can theoretically tell me a system that would be better than our current one and better than a single payer one I would be all to hear it out but as it stands we pay for 39-57% of our health care system so health costs are already being supplemented publicly.

 

And why would a single payer system in America work like a single payer system in Canada or somewhere else in the world. Why can't we have a universal system that works better than the rest of the world. Our military is better run and funded than any other country in the world so why couldn't our heath care system be better.

 

We spend more in terms of percentage of GDP than any other country in the world so why can't we have the best health care system for all. Yes our system is the most innovative but can't we try and keep that innovation with a universal system?

 

Already discussed in another thread.

[Alaska Darin]

You can sue the police for things like brutality it has happened in the past Rodney King sued the police and got 3.8 million dollars. Consequences for police actions can come in the form of internal actions and trial of officers involved in cases of things like brutality. I admitted I was wrong that there is a legal right to police protection but morally you are at a right to be protected by the best of the ability of the police.

You keep holding onto that as if it's somehow relevant. Legally you're not entitled to police protection. Being able to sue an entity because one of their employees beats your ass in the commission of their duties is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

Morally? Laughable.

What are the serious consequences for tuning over health care to the government and are those consequences worse than what is already going on? I mean there are 50 million uninsured and others under insured. While many companies continue to cut costs on coverage many more Americans continue to loose coverage or become under insured.

How about fewer health care professionals? Significantly less innovation in the industry? An even larger bureaucracy brought to you by the people with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV, only now YOUR life depends on it? Loss of the ability to sue for malpractice?

 

How about further job losses overseas because of even more employment tax to pay for this new "entitlement"? Surely companies wouldn't move jobs to countries without health care to save money? Nah.

You have to ask if the government can do a better job than what is being done now not a perfect system but it will be better. What is the alternative to the system we have now that would be better than a universal system.

Different doesn't mean better. I KNOW the government won't do a better job. The government is completely bankrupt now and spiraling deeper every day. Virtually nothing they put their hands on ends up better, instead being less efficient and more expensive. That's to say nothing of their ability to take tax money earmarked for one thing and spend it on something else. I'm sure they wouldn't take money from a new health care tax and use it for other things like they do with Social Security. Medicare is certainly cheaper and better, right? Find a veteran and ask them how good their health care is...

 

If you want to see where the current crisis began, you only have to look at the HMO Act of 1973. Ask yourself why a hospital is the only place in this country where they don't have to tell you what something costs or where what you pay for something isn't EXACTLY the same as what another person pays for the same thing?

 

Imagine going to a store and picking up a gallon of milk and them billing you $12,000.00 because you have a better job than your neighbor, who is only paying $2.50? How about going to have your car fixed, having the mechanic fix the problem you took it in for but while doing that, breaking something else, fixing it as well and then billing you for that repair as well.

 

Welcome to the health care system Congress has essentially given us. Now certainly anything new they give us won't be nearly that messed up.

How is that a stupid quesiton last time I checked you have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness according to the Constitution.

Ignoring the fact that the 2 statements aren't comparable in the least (Life exists on paper? Really? ), could you please cite specifically where that phrase exists in the Constitution?

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah I get universal health coverage so I am going to smoke now. Things like cancer magically go away and I can drink myself silly because getting an organ transplant is so easy and fun. Corporate Executives take poor care of themselves in part due to the fact they have access to everything possible in the world its not because getting a liver transplant is so easy. I doubt they think that far ahead.

I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".

 

Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.

 

Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't.

Do people who have insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want. Diabetes and obesity won't effect me. I think dieing early is enough to keep people from not doing stupid things. We won't go from a society of health nuts to smoking fat asses because of universal health care.

Do people who have car insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want? Other drivers and driving drunk won't effect me. You would think that dying in a fiery wreck, or the prospect of killing other people, would be enough to be careful on the road, or keep us from driving drunk, but it doesn't. Those who do and don't die pay heavy in terms of their insurance premiums, in addition to fines from the state. We will go to a society of fat ass smokers if there are no consequences for bad health behavior like there are for drunk driving.

In a universal system you can still lower payer rates for healthier people and raise rates on those who smoke and have other conditions. I pointed that out in my original post.

Yeah, yeah, let's see what they do when people realize that a minority group or women represent a higher risk group for a particular disease. Standard insurance practice would mean that they would raise the rate on that group. Are you trying to tell me that there won't be massive lawsuits, and phony "civil rights violation" complaints, because it's the government doing the raising of the rates? How likely is it that instead: the government ignores standard insurance practice and keeps the rates the same, to avoid the BS and because of some misguided racial agenda(see Barney Frank and the mortgage industry), and the government now needs MORE money to cover the cost of care for people who weren't paying the right amount of premiums? Take a wild guess where that more money comes from. Hint: people that make less than $250k a year...yeah, the very same people who Obama said would not be taxed.

[OCinBuffalo]

Fixed, now I agree.

 

I bash liberals here when they insist on using the word "should" and ignore the words "is" and "how" and tell us that we are racists when we point out that "should" simply isn't good enough. Any # of a-holes can run around telling us how things "should" be. Few of us, including myself, actually go around analyzing the "is" and then providing the "how".

 

The high opinion you are referring to is certainly not shared by me. Personally, I think that I am a goofball. However, that has no effect on the high opinion of others, to the tune of my billable rate, and those who seek my opinion, especially on this matter. You may not like those facts, but they are the facts. The politicians I spoke to last week about this didn't seek my knowledge on this matter by accident, I was summoned. They were certainly pleased with our meeting.

 

Hmm. Why would I include my own personal work.....OH, I know! Because one of our primary lines of business is 100% focused on cost reduction, workflow and integration, and business intelligence in Health Care? Nah, that's not relevant to this discussion at all. No way I should be talking about it. I should defer to people like you who know next to nothing about this material, and don't like it when, once again, I point out that your "how" is either stupid or non-existent.

[Booster4324]

I bash liberals here when they insist on using the word "should" and ignore the words "is" and "how" and tell us that we are racists when we point out that "should" simply isn't good enough. Any # of a-holes can run around telling us how things "should" be. Few of us, including myself, actually go around analyzing the "is" and then providing the "how".

 

The high opinion you are referring to is certainly not shared by me. Personally, I think that I am a goofball. However, that has no effect on the high opinion of others, to the tune of my billable rate, and those who seek my opinion, especially on this matter. You may not like those facts, but they are the facts. The politicians I spoke to last week about this didn't seek my knowledge on this matter by accident, I was summoned. They were certainly pleased with our meeting.

 

Hmm. Why would I include my own personal work.....OH, I know! Because one of our primary lines of business is 100% focused on cost reduction, workflow and integration, and business intelligence in Health Care? Nah, that's not relevant to this discussion at all. No way I should be talking about it. I should defer to people like you who know next to nothing about this material, and don't like it when, once again, I point out that your "how" is either stupid or non-existent.

 

And touting that our politicians (the grand thinkers they are) wanted your expertise helps prove which point? Yours or mine?