Has anyone seen these polls?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Haha, yes, but sighting one example

I cited 5 examples. It's only been 6 months or 1/8 of his first term.

...where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

I never said he was a socialist or fascist. I said he has enacted policies that are. There is no argument about this because the definitions are pretty by the book. It's pointless to argue people's thoughts or feelings, you can only argue what they do. And so far...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s) Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

[Vampyr]

I'm just judging from my personal interactions with people I know and see from day to day. Maybe it has something to do with where I live, eastern Kentucky is not exactly a hub of social progression.

But since you guys have highlighted the evils of universal health care somewhere else and I don't want to track them all down and read them, I'll just pour through the reasons I think universal health care is good:

1. It would encourage people with long term chronic health conditions to seek care for something they may have been neglecting too because of cost.

2. France spends about $569 LESS per person for health care than the United States. France has universal health care, the US doesn't.

3. It would help get rid of evil insurance companies. I guess this is arguable, but I don't understand why health insurance companies have the right to invade your privacy on matters of your health.

4. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans, both democrat and republican, would prefer universal health care to what we have now.

5. Administrative costs of the current US health system (overhead, paperwork) constitutes about 25% of health care spending in the united states. This is much, much higher than it is in other countries with universal health care.

6. In most cases it won't even raise your taxes!!! As it stands now, about 59% of the US health care system is funded by public money. About 20% is paid for by individuals, through deductibles, co-pays, the uninsured paying directly, etc. 21% is funded by private employers. In a new universal system all of that tax money being funneled into medicare/caid would be retained. Employers would pay about a 7% payroll tax, and people would pay a 2% income tax. The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For most people, that 2% is less than what they pay now for out of pocket expenses, especially if someone in your family is seriously ill.

Obviously, employers who don't offer any coverage will be paying more with this system, but most employers who do offer coverage will be paying -less-. People without insurance will be paying more, but people with insurance will be paying less.

As it stands now, about 47 million people are uninsured. Hundreds of thousands of people who actually are insured are still bankrupted when something serious happens.

7. Labeling it 'socialized medicine' is false, it's actually 'socialized healthcare'. The government doesn't own the hospitals or manage them, contrary to a popular belief.

8. It would increase competition among doctors for patients. Doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients just because they belong to a provider group. This would probably increase the quality of care since they would be competition for patients. Man, competition. That's almost a free market word!

9. America spends a much higher GDP on health care than any other country, but we have worse ratings on quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times.

10. Last but not least, regardless of what anyone says, health care is a basic human right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s)

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations...

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

Heh, polls I was looking at actually show those numbers almost flipped.

Also, most Western European nations that have universal health care also have private health care that is available for those who want it.

Also, like I said, it wouldn't be "complete government control".

The government doesn't control it, the government pays for care which is delivered in the -private- sector, like how Medicare works now. Doctors are paid on in a fee-for-service model.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

People, or politicians? I don't remember anyone having any speeches about how they need to shut down all the public schools or stop building them.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations...

lol?

70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier.

Where did you get those poll numbers?

[The Germanator]

The thing I don't understand is that people are trying to shoot the healthcare plan down without presenting any better options. Obviously the current system isn't great, and if you disagree with the current plan, then instead of just decrying "death panels" and "you're going to kill my grandpa" rhetoric, why don't you bring something to the table? Something has to change in healthcare, and I would have much more respect for the other side if they were trying to help make it better fit so everyone is pleased with the idea rather than derailing the plan completely.

[Professor S]

A lot to respond to here, so I'll try and move in order and be brief.

1) Polls

This is what I was referring to:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._recent_months

There is a lot in there, but to sum it up about half of Americans considered their care good or excellent, but only 18% considered it poor. Those numbers don't exactly confirm or deny the 70% numbers I had seen bandied about, but it definitely shows many more Americans consider their healthcare to be good or better than those who consider it bad. When it comes to healthcare, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now if the questions in the polling were do you think America has good healthcare, those numbers would be significantly different, and they always have been. People always think things are much worse for others than they are for themselves.

I also ignored the overly positive numbers solely from those with insurance, because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

2) Control - If you control the money, you control the care. I see little difference in getting a paycheck or a reimbursement. In the end it's quibbling over small points. Money = Control and if the government has the money they control your healthcare and can dictate how you are treated by dictating what they'll pay for.

As for the "optional" nature of this, well thats more of a myth than anything. I detailed this in previous posts.

3) Public Schools - I never said people talked about shutting down public schools, but A LOT of people want their money to follow their child to a private school due to the poor nature of many public schools, especially in inner cities. There was actually a huge debate about this from a voucher program in DC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060802041.html

4) Other options - The Republicans do have a platform to address healthcare, but no one seems to listen or care. Much of this is a procedural problem because the Republicans have a pretty severe minority right now and Nancy Pelosi simply son't allow most of these ideas to be discussed on the floor of the house.

Here is a link to the Republican Healthcare Platform, much of it I support, some I don't entirely. I'll quote some important parts. The whole thing is a pretty good read, however, whether you agree with it or not, and please try and read it with an open mind.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm

Empower Individuals to Make the Best Health Care Choices.

Clear information about health care empowers patients. It lets consumers make better decisions about where to spend their health care dollars, thereby fostering competition and lowering costs. Patients must have information to make sound decisions about their health care providers, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Protect Good Health Care Providers from Frivolous Lawsuits

Every patient must have access to legal remedies for malpractice, but meritless lawsuits drive up insurance rates to outrageous levels and ultimately drive up the number of uninsured. Frivolous lawsuits also drive up the cost of health care as health care providers are forced to practice defensive medicine, such as ordering unnecessary tests. Many leave their practices rather than deal with the current system. This emergency demands medical liability reform.

Reward Good Health Care Providers for Delivering Real Results

Patients deserve access to health care providers they trust who will personalize and coordinate their care to ensure they receive the right treatment with the right health care provider at the right time. Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform. The current cookie-cutter system of reimbursement needs restructuring from the view of the patient, not the accountant or Washington bureaucrat.

Drive Costs Down With Interstate Competition

A state-regulated national market for health insurance means more competition, more choice, and lower costs. Families – as well as fraternal societies, churches and community groups, and small employers – should be able to purchase policies across state lines. The best practices and lowest prices should be available in every state. We call upon state legislators to carefully consider the cost of medical mandates, and we salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options.

[Vampyr]

That poll really just proves some of my points.

Over the past few months, as the health care reform debate has raged, confidence in the current system has increased significantly among Republicans and unaffiliated voters. There has been little change among Democrats.

Just 28% say they are willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans can have health insurance. Sixty percent (60%) are opposed. Those figures are little changed since May.

Recent polling has shown that cost, not universal coverage, is the top concern about health care.

This in particular. I stated earlier that people not wanting to pay money for universal health care was the reason they didn't want it, and this proves that. However, these people are misguided in their information. I posted an explanation in an earlier post about how people with insurance would likely be paying less, and this poll seems to have surveyed mostly people -with- insurance.

These people hear the words "universal health care" and "taxes" in the same sentence and nearly have a heart attack, which is what I said earlier and the response was "no no, this 'people don't care' argument is false and is getting old".

As for the 74% rating their quality of care as good or excellent...that has little to do with coverage and more to do with your experience at the hospital.

Just to drive my point home:

Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it’s likely the passage of health care reform will lead to higher taxes for the middle class.

It's all about the cost to people, even though they will probably be paying less. If you don't have insurance then yes, you will obviously be paying more, but the reason you don't have health insurance right now is because it's too expensive. With a 2% income tax, people will be able to afford it.

Also, the points you quoted for the Republican plan don't seem likely to work. They are all abstract ways of helping people with health care that seem nice in theory, but with results that will be difficult measure. And why are we ok with implementing a plan where a 'pro' is that you can buy policies across state lines?

And "We salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options"? That line doesn't sound bias at all. XD

edit: I guess those people are techincally correct - taxes will be higher. But I get the feeling that they don't realize it will be lower than their current insurance premiums, copay, deductibles, etc, etc.

[Bond]

It is very difficult to have a frank and honest discussion about health care if the scope of the discussion is not narrowed. Also, we have covered a lot of these same points ad nauseam in previous threads.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

—Ayn Rand

[Professor S]

Vamp:
1) You're mixing together a whole lot of data. Thats why I concentrated on the numbers that asked what people felt about their level of care, and the vast majority think it's ok or better. If this was not the case, there would be no debate right now, and we'd already have a bill regardless of cost.

2) Money is an issue, and quite honestly it should be. More money is wasted by the government than anyone else. Look at California... the highest taxes and the highest debt and they're just about ready to collapse.

2) Do you think only a government run program can work?

[Vampyr]

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.

I can't help but to think in the long run it would make sense financially to switch to a public option.

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.

Also, about the Republican plan: Yes, those are all great ideas. But they aren't a real plan for health care. They are auxiliary options which can be implemented alongside public health care.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I've been reading some of the arguments in another thread. The biggest negative I see is the supposed cost of switching to a public option for health care.

But as I stated before...America spends over $500 more per person on health care than other countries with a public option. Administrative costs for our health care are exorbitantly high compared to universal care systems.

I've already addressed the high-cost issue of health care in a previous thread. The exorbenate cost of our health services is, in fact, due to excessive government intervention. Please see my below quoted post:

" 1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

Allow me to first use a few relevant and important statistical charts:



This chart depicts health care expenditures as percent of GDP and per capita. As you can see health care expenditures have nearly tripled as a percent of GDP since the 1960s, as well as the cost per capita of health care. This begs the question: what has lead to this enormous increase in the cost of health care?



This chart depicts average annual CPI change (%) by component. Once again we see the rise in medical care significantly outpacing the change of all other items. And, again, this begs the question, why?

For the answer to this question, I harkon back to my original point, that the rapid (and recent) rise in health care costs is primarily due to the advent of insurance/HMO/PPO companies, which were mandated by, and heavily regulated, by the government. In fact, the health insurance industry is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in our country.

For an exact explanation of what HMO/PPO companies are and how they function, I would recommend outside sources, as I don’t want to go into too much detail concerning them. Suffice to say, they are a middle man, between you and your doctor. Middle men naturally raise the price of any good, as they have raised the price of health care.

Let’s consult one more chart, which depicts who is paying for health care costs:



Here again we see a stark contrast from the 1960s to present day. During the 1960s, the majority of health care was paid by out-of-pocket, and a small fraction was paid by the federal government. Present day, only a small fraction is paid by out-of-pocket, and payments by the federal government have quadrupled. I would, again, correlate this back to the rise of the HMO/PPO, as mandated by the federal government.

(These charts are derived from numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)"


Also, this essay by Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute briefly summarizes the government's role in driving up the cost of health care: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...s_iv_ctrl=2401

Another argument is that the government has traditionally messed up health care. What sort of reasoning is that? If other governments can do it, so can we.

Have you recently looked at France's marginal income tax rate? It is drastically higher than ours. That is why they are able to afford and subsidize their hybrid healthcare system. The French tax at least 40% of ones earnings if they earn above the equivalent of 95,000 dollars per year (Source: http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002E0A/$FILE/JT00187984.PDF).

[Professor S]

Uh oh, that article dares to state that healthcare isn't a "right". I think 1/2 the people stopped reading right there.

[Vampyr]

Bond: I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't the key word here health care reform? Aren't the things you posted exactly what we want to change?