Public Option, where do you stand?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you support a public health insurance option?

  • Yes

    Votes: 154 49.5%
  • No

    Votes: 122 39.2%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 35 11.3%

  • Total voters
    311
Which polls showed those numbers?
This poll doesn't indicate so.

That poll dosn't ask about the public option, just health care reform in general.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/polls-and-the-public-option/

Here are 5 polls that asked about the public option:

CNN: 61% support
Wall St Journal/NBC: 72% support
ABC News/Wash Post: 57% support
Kaiser Health: 57% support
NYT/CBS News: 65% support

That last poll I got from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html
 
americans, as a group, are gullible and, in a sense, dumb. they will rally behind anything just because it seems like the right thing to do.

remember 9/11? remember bush and all the scare tactics the media used to get support for all the BS the bush administration has done?

yeah, now replace bush with obama and weapons of mass destruction with '47 million uninsured'. it's just a tool to get the american public behind something that isnt even the root of the problem.

the health of an individual isnt something you can simply take over, like iraq, or something you can dump money into and hope it gets better. it involves changing the lifestyle and, fundamentally, the person. the public option does none of this. actually, no government should force anyone to change anything about themselves. the government also shouldnt force you or me to pay for Joe McFatty's healthcare because he cant put down the burger he's eating or the cigarette he's smoking.
 
There is no right to healthcare! It isn't in the constitution, it isn't a "natural right", it isn't anywhere. I oppose the bill and I oppose the concept. If people are too damn lazy or unintelligent to get insurance I don't care. If they can't afford I don't care. I'm tired of people trying to beat around the bush and couch their language in platitudes. I am not my brother's keeper. I feel no commitment towards the deadbeats and failures of the world. Don't expect me to pay for them.

Though you can argue this point from a purely legal perspective it can be also be argued that the spirit of the constitution is to better enable the execution of the declaration of independence with its goal of a more perfect union, (ie a better society for all Americans) with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus the idea of healthcare being a right, since a person getting sick is a threat to both life and the pursuit of happiness.


As to you larger point, I disagree completely. The majority of people who receive government assistance of any kind are not unemployed, lazy bums, but the working poor. These people work 2 sometimes 3 jobs and still can't make ends meet.

You may feel no responsibility to your fellow citizen and it is your right to make such arguments. But thank god most people disagree with you and most people accept the idea of a social contract in which society takes care of its own through some short of government which serves as social insurance. You may not ever need this insurance but if some tragedy should befall you it is there.

Case in point, I was recently on vacation on Maui, Hawaii celebrating my acceptance to USUHS. I was hiking the Hale Maui trail, 15 miles and got lost right at the end of it. I found myself trapped in a creek bed unable to go forward or back. I had allotted plenty of time to finish the hike before sundown and had brought 14 liters of water with me. However, despite having an extra 2 hours, I was unable to find the trail and ended up sleeping on the volcano, (a cold, windy, wet and miserable night let me tell you, it got down to 40 degrees at that elevation, 7,000 ft and with windchill it was maybe 30 degrees). By early the next day I was out of water and down to my last food. I was lucky to find 2 six gallon water jugs hidden off to the side of the creek bed, so I had plenty of water but no food.

I spent 4 hours that morning scouring that creek bed looking for a trail, any trail. I finally found one and though I had found the Hale Mau trail, but had not, instead had found an abandoned trail that would have led me over a different volcano, going in the wrong direction.

Lucky for me my father had called search and rescue the night previous at 7 pm, when I was 2 hours late, (he was picking me up at the trail head in a parking lot at 5 pm the previous day).

The helicopter found me 6 hours after sunrise, in the middle of one of the volcanic valley floors, completely lost and going in the wrong direction.

When I was reunited with my father and explained what had happened I pointed out that this is why we pay taxes and participate in civil society, because its a form of social insurance.

Had we lived in a libertarian/anarchy utopia you seem to advocate I would have likely died out on that mountain, and the contributions to society I would have made over several decades as an Army doctor, (including the many hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes I would have paid) would be lost along with my life.

I am sure you believe that search and rescue is a waste of tax dollars and that any hikers who get lost should save themselves or die but lucky for me most people disagree with your cynical, every man for himself view.

Its easy for a successful person to look down on any less fortunate individual and proclaim them to be lazy, stupid and not worthy of assistance of any kind. BUT you should realize that in our society only the super rich are truly safe.

For example, my father has a friend who is a doctor, owned his own FP practice and was very successful. His wife developed cancer, which they fought for several years and she unfortunately died from. This doctor, who had been a millionaire, lost everything fighting for his wife's life. He spent every penny of their savings, mortgaged the house, even took out loans on the clinic he owned and ended up losing everything and declaring bankruptcy. If a millionaire can go bankrupt due to medical tragedy then whom among us is really safe?

I remember other people like futureCTdoc, those who invoked Laissez fair libertarian economic principles, who said that the losers in our society are just the collateral damage of the best possible economic system and that there are always winners and losers and that the losers must sink or swim on their own.

These were people who were only concerned with their own self interest, specifically making as much money as possible. They were wall street investment bankers, the ones earning record, multi-million dollar bonuses each year and proclaiming that they had earned every cent because they had earned record profits for their companies through the creation and trading of credit default swaps and financial derivatives.

Then their financial ponze scheme ended, with the global financial markets melting down due to the toxic assets these sons of bitches had created, bundled and then sold.

These same laissez faire, gordon gecko mother ****ers then went running to congress demanding the biggest bailout in history, took $780 billion of tax payer funds and then used it to invest in the stock market that had collapsed because of their idiocy.

They got in at the bottom, and the market rallied, (because they were pumping so much of our money into the market they had cratered) which then rallied, they made record profits, (after dumping their toxic assets onto the gov) and gave themselves billions in bonuses, (again using tax payer funds!).

These *******s, who for years decried any form of welfare as worthless entitlements for deadbeats, then bitched about how they were entitled to their million dollar bonuses even after they had run their companies into the ground!

Perhaps futureCTdoc is true to his principles and honestly believes that no one should be anyone's brother's keeper and that every one should truly fend for themselves. Perhaps this noble idealist has experienced personal tragedy and has lived his principles and is even willing to die for them, (rather than take a dime in government aid of any kind).

Or most likely, if tragedy ever befell him or his loved ones he would then demand society bail him out, by using the same government programs that he spent his entire adult life railing against.
 
Last edited:
Though you can argue this point from a purely legal perspective it can be also be argued that the spirit of the constitution is to better enable the execution of the declaration of independence with its goal of a more perfect union, (ie a better society for all Americans) with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
.

I think someone needs to retake those political classes. "a more perfect union" means a "better society for all Americans"? Thats a bit of a stretch even for this thread.
 
I think someone needs to retake those political classes. "a more perfect union" means a "better society for all Americans"? Thats a bit of a stretch even for this thread.

So what do you think a more perfect union means?
 
Ummmmm, actually no. Your exact statement was "I DO think those that don't support any of these bills in question are heartless people that don't care about their future patients", which IS ABSURD. You can not necessarily support the current bill and still support a public/private option mix. In fact, you could support an entirely single payer option & still not be in support of the current bill.




Be careful what you assume from polls.




That 46-47 million number is inflated:

uninsured_chart3.jpg


How many of this 46-47 million actually need or should be given insurance with tax money? You can pretty much subtract those already eligible for insurance through government options since they can get it currently, those earning > $75,000 a year, and at least a good portion of those eligible for employer coverage that choose not to get it. That leaves the illegal & legal immigrants + Americans that really need it. If you don't want to pay for the illegal immigrants, that even brings the number down further. Suddenly that 47 million shrinks substantially. Are the changes really necessary for such a small portion of the population, or could that number be supplied insurance by some other method?

I phrased my own statement wrong, didn't mean to say "imply" sorry, but what is there to ASSUME with the NEJM poll? It's pretty straight-forward that if 63% of physicians support the public option combined with private coverage and 10% support the public option only, then 73% of physicians support the public option. Don't see how you can interpret it anyway else?

Um, that's still 17-23 million uninsured (immigration reform might pass within next year so some/all of that 5.2 million may be added as well), I don't think we should just neglect them because they're a "small portion of our population." I suppose you're right and they might be helped by strengthening Medicaid, but it's been projected that private health care costs are just going to continue rising, meaning more and more people are going to find it unaffordable as the years go by and more and more people are going to be added to that list of uninsured. It's not a scare tactic like the Iraq War and 9/11, it's a fact. We have to get to the source and just force these guys to lower rates, it's the only way to make health insurance attractive to EVERYONE. That's the thing, unless everyone here is making over $200,000 (because they'll be taxed for these proposed bills no matter what), then health care reform can ultimately only help make insurance affordable from poor to middle class (even if you're already covered). I fail to see how people in that spectrum would be against it because you'll more than likely be saving money if anything. If people are worried about the deficit, these proposed bills are also projected to be DEFICIT SAVING measures, so it's a two in one shot (both affordable insurance coverage and it helps reduce our deficit). I don't see a problem here.

I feel that healthcare should be a right to the people, call it naive, call it whatever. Making a profit off of someone's health just seems completely unethical in my opinion, which is why I don't trust these insurance companies or care about whether they fail or succeed, period. Who knows, maybe the government will do just a crappy of a job with healthcare, but at the moment I trust them more than I ever would Cigna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I feel it is worth the chance to do something rather than nothing at all.

Yes, I know someone's probably going to post something after this with links and everything, but I've got to study (I've been spending WAY too much time on this thread). Good debate though.
 
That 46-47 million number is inflated:

uninsured_chart3.jpg

Looks like the 47 million is dead on, to me.

You you direct me to the data that was used to generate this pie chart? This 2005 analysis found only 11% of the uninsured were "high income." (>500% of the Federal poverty line, about $50,000/year for 1 person).
 
Looks like the 47 million is dead on, to me.

So you are saying, we should include people in the "uninsured" who are

1. Too lazy to sign up for health care. (15.7 million)
2. Choose not to have health care, but can afford it (9 million)
3. People are illegally in our country, using our government resources, and not paying any taxes in return (and most likely sending a lot of the money they make back to their home country). (5.2 million)

Sounds pretty sketchy to me to call those people uninsured, without adding some type of adjective or followup statement.

When I look at the chart, I only see 2 groups that would qualify as "uninsured": The Americans w/o affordable options and Legal Immigrants; those two groups are less then 20 million, so by far, far from the 46 million. It's not even half.
 
So you are saying, we should include people in the "uninsured" who are

Yes, I call them uninsured because they lack health insurance. It's really that simple. Sleight of hand doesn't make them (and their needs) suddenly vanish. A wealthy developed nation with a health care expenditure as high as ours should have a system that delivers zero uninsured citizens and legal residents. The uninsured are a symptom, not the disease. And this symptom has been getting worse over the years, not better.
 
When I look at the chart, I only see 2 groups that would qualify as "uninsured": The Americans w/o affordable options and Legal Immigrants; those two groups are less then 20 million, so by far, far from the 46 million. It's not even half.

👍
 
So what do you think a more perfect union means?

Your posts are perfect examples of how a little bit of information in the hands of an imbicile is a very dangerous thing.

First, the quote "more perfect union" is not from the DoI. It is from the preamble of the Constitution.

Second, the "more perfect union" refers to the purpose of the constitution, not any actual power granted to the federal government. The actual powers are delineated and no where is the federal government given a right to force the citizens to purchase a good or service, which is exactly what this bill entails.

Third, assuming your interpretation of "a more perfect union" was correct, then the federal government would be justified in passing any law that was deemed to "perfect" the union (obviously the question of what constitutes perfect becomes significant). Essentially, the union would have limitless power. Since this explicitly contradicts the overall purpose of the constitution, then your interpretation becomes absolute garbage.
 
That 46-47 million number is inflated:

Never mind, I found it myself: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/cps.html

There is actually a treasure trove of information in the reports on this site.

Percentage of Americans with insurance:

Year: 1998 / 2008
Any private plan 70.2 / 67.5
Employment-based 62.0 / 59.3
Government plan 24.3 / 27.8
Medicare 13.2 / 13.8
Medicaid 10.3 / 13.2

In other words, the percentage of uninsured Americans has remained relatively static, but it's because losses from private insurance coverage are sopped up by Goverment programs. When should we break out the champagne?
 
Never mind, I found it myself: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/cps.html

There is actually a treasure trove of information in the reports on this site.

Percentage of Americans with insurance:

Year: 1998 / 2008
Any private plan 70.2 / 67.5
Employment-based 62.0 / 59.3
Government plan 24.3 / 27.8
Medicare 13.2 / 13.8
Medicaid 10.3 / 13.2

In other words, the percentage of uninsured Americans has remained relatively static, but it's because losses from private insurance coverage are sopped up by Goverment programs. When should we break out the champagne?

So why is all the talk about insurance, insurance, insurance? To me those numbers just confirm that the problem is not a lack of insurance, rather rising health care costs, which the current bill does very little to address.
 
So why is all the talk about insurance, insurance, insurance? To me those numbers just confirm that the problem is not a lack of insurance, rather rising health care costs, which the current bill does very little to address.

Because then you don't create another social welfare program that will keep us suckling at the teet of the nanny state, which is basically what this bill boils down to.
 
So why is all the talk about insurance, insurance, insurance? To me those numbers just confirm that the problem is not a lack of insurance, rather rising health care costs, which the current bill does very little to address.

Have you read the bill?
 
In a wealthy nation such as ours, a high % of GDP going to health care should indicate universal, high quality care. Overall, we are getting very poor value for our health care dollars. The citizenry, particularly providers, should be up in arms about this.

I'm confused. I thought we did have the highest quality of care? I mean no one goes to Canada to receive better quality care; however, the reverse is often times true.
 
Have you read the bill?

I skimmed through most of the draft about a month ago, and I admit I have a hard time understanding what the hell it actually is saying, but from what I gathered one primary things it may do to control costs (although this is not guaranteed) is some partial, either direct or indirect, rationing of services, although the majority of the bill involves expanding coverage & increasing taxes on certain populations (i.e. rich) to pay for it. I'm actually all for rationing, but I think we are going to have to be a lot more frugal than what is outlined. I can't find where it addresses over utilization of expensive services. It seems to me the primary effect of this bill will simply be to redistribute wealth.
 
I'm confused. I thought we did have the highest quality of care? I mean no one goes to Canada to receive better quality care; however, the reverse is often times true.

We DON'T according to every study. Research it. You can find it in practically EVERY study. About the only thing we might be winners in is cancer survivability and that's it. And where did you get this info that "no one in America goes to Canada because their system is SO awful and everyone from Canada comes to America because our healthcare is SO great?" Just hearing it from a friend, of a friend, of a friend (or fox news, which is equivalent to that) is not really a legit source. Have you ever even KNOWN a Canadian, for the record? And did he/she say that they came here for our health system? Please give us a news source or something, because just saying something and not really having the facts to back it up only adds to the already piling layer of b.s. that's making the easily manipulated question health care reform.

And also, this is BOTH an uninsured issue AND a cost issue. Ultimately, when costs get TOO high, which is going to happen if we continue to let rates go up uninhibitted, you're going to get more UNINSURED. It's common sense. What exactly is the problem with telling these CEOs: "Um, you need to start lowering rates for EVERYONE because this is getting ridiculous." I don't understand the oppositions problem with lowering insurance rates for everyone or making sure everyone's covered by health insurance? Don't people WANT to save money? Don't future doctors WANT their future patients to be insured? Don't people want our deficit to be reduced? I thought all those things were good? Am I living in the twilight zone or something where things are backward? Or has it been reverse day for the last 4 months?
 
Last edited:
I skimmed through most of the draft about a month ago, and I admit I have a hard time understanding what the hell it actually is saying, but from what I gathered one primary things it may do to control costs (although this is not guaranteed) is some partial, either direct or indirect, rationing of services, although the majority of the bill involves expanding coverage & increasing taxes on certain populations (i.e. rich) to pay for it. I'm actually all for rationing, but I think we are going to have to be a lot more frugal than what is outlined. I can't find where it addresses over utilization of expensive services. It seems to me the primary effect of this bill will simply be to redistribute wealth.

We are discussing H.R.3962, right?
 
We DON'T according to every study. Research it. You can find it in practically EVERY study. About the only thing we might be winners in is cancer survivability and that's it. And where did you get this info that "no one in America goes to Canada because their system is SO awful and everyone from Canada comes to America because our healthcare is SO great?" Just hearing it from a friend, of a friend, of a friend (or fox news, which is equivalent to that) is not really a legit source. Have you ever even KNOWN a Canadian, for the record? And did he/she say that they came here for our health system? Please give us a news source or something, because just saying something and not really having the facts to back it up only adds to the already piling layer of b.s. that's making the easily manipulated question health care reform.

And also, this is BOTH an uninsured issue AND a cost issue. Ultimately, when costs get TOO high, which is going to happen if we continue to let rates go up uninhibitted, you're going to get more UNINSURED. It's common sense. What exactly is the problem with telling these CEOs: "Um, you need to start lowering rates for EVERYONE because this is getting ridiculous." I don't understand the oppositions problem with lowering insurance rates for everyone or making sure everyone's covered by health insurance? Don't people WANT to save money? Don't future doctors WANT their future patients to be insured? Don't people want our deficit to be reduced? I thought all those things were good? Am I living in the twilight zone or something where things are backward? Or has it been reverse day for the last 4 months?

Wow...the inanity of your post is mind boggling.

First, the only "studies" that show weakness in the U.S. system are the oft cited, and even more oft-refuted stats compare the life expenctancy and birth survival rates of various countries. Despite the fact that these numbers have time and time again been shown to be poor indicators of the quality of health care in a country. When you compare cancer and heart disease survival rates then the US ranks first or near first.

ttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

Second, you wonder why people wouldn't want the public option when it will lower costs, and insure everyone, and lower the deficit. Wow, that is some magic bill. The answer to your question is that bill, by the democrats own admission, will achieve none of that. The price tag of 1.5 trillion is a minimum cost. It will end up costing much more than that and we will still have 10s of millions of people uninsured. More over, the bill does nothing to correct the SRG which every single physician on the planet agrees is screwed up to high heaven. Not to mention the biggest glaring ommission, the fact that this bill waves a magic wand and gives everyone insurance, then what? We don't have enough doctors for the people who are insured now! Add 30-40 million to the roles without the commesurate number of doctors and all you have achieved is longer wait times, shorter appointments, and higher taxes for everyone.

Congratulations.
 
We DON'T according to every study. Research it. You can find it in practically EVERY study. About the only thing we might be winners in is cancer survivability and that's it. And where did you get this info that "no one in America goes to Canada because their system is SO awful and everyone from Canada comes to America because our healthcare is SO great?" Just hearing it from a friend, of a friend, of a friend (or fox news, which is equivalent to that) is not really a legit source. Have you ever even KNOWN a Canadian, for the record? And did he/she say that they came here for our health system? Please give us a news source or something, because just saying something and not really having the facts to back it up only adds to the already piling layer of b.s. that's making the easily manipulated question health care reform.

And also, this is BOTH an uninsured issue AND a cost issue. Ultimately, when costs get TOO high, which is going to happen if we continue to let rates go up uninhibitted, you're going to get more UNINSURED. It's common sense. What exactly is the problem with telling these CEOs: "Um, you need to start lowering rates for EVERYONE because this is getting ridiculous." I don't understand the oppositions problem with lowering insurance rates for everyone or making sure everyone's covered by health insurance? Don't people WANT to save money? Don't future doctors WANT their future patients to be insured? Don't people want our deficit to be reduced? I thought all those things were good? Am I living in the twilight zone or something where things are backward? Or has it been reverse day for the last 4 months?

i think a lot of the apprehensions people hold about this public option is the lowered reimbursement rates (read: medicare/medicaid) and lack of malpractice reform. I don't understand people's qualms about having the government take over and tell physicians how to treat their patients, because health insurance and malpractice insurance companies already dictate how medicine is practiced in America.

Health insurance availability to all is not communism.
 
Last edited:
That poll dosn't ask about the public option, just health care reform in general.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/polls-and-the-public-option/

Here are 5 polls that asked about the public option:

CNN: 61% support
Wall St Journal/NBC: 72% support
ABC News/Wash Post: 57% support
Kaiser Health: 57% support
NYT/CBS News: 65% support

That last poll I got from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html
As the two polls from WSJ/NBC demonstrate, how the question is worded made a huge difference in overall response.
 
Wow...the inanity of your post is mind boggling.

First, the only "studies" that show weakness in the U.S. system are the oft cited, and even more oft-refuted stats compare the life expenctancy and birth survival rates of various countries. Despite the fact that these numbers have time and time again been shown to be poor indicators of the quality of health care in a country. When you compare cancer and heart disease survival rates then the US ranks first or near first.

ttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

Second, you wonder why people wouldn't want the public option when it will lower costs, and insure everyone, and lower the deficit. Wow, that is some magic bill. The answer to your question is that bill, by the democrats own admission, will achieve none of that. The price tag of 1.5 trillion is a minimum cost. It will end up costing much more than that and we will still have 10s of millions of people uninsured. More over, the bill does nothing to correct the SRG which every single physician on the planet agrees is screwed up to high heaven. Not to mention the biggest glaring ommission, the fact that this bill waves a magic wand and gives everyone insurance, then what? We don't have enough doctors for the people who are insured now! Add 30-40 million to the roles without the commesurate number of doctors and all you have achieved is longer wait times, shorter appointments, and higher taxes for everyone.

Congratulations.

You think WHO studies are "oft-cited?" What studies DO you believe? The ones that prove your point, right? I've read this study that's actually QUITE interesting: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Seems that France and Japan are RIGHT up there with the U.S. in cancer survivability, and guess what? They have GOVERNMENT health care systems. There goes that theory that having a government plan "decreases quality." And also, guess what? They spend LESS on their healthcare, not the outrageous prices we pay for insurance here in the U.S. THEY GET MORE OUT OF HEALTHCARE FOR LESS OF THE COST. Isn't that what all the studies have been saying? I haven't read polls on heart disease, but I'm certain it'll have the same outcome.

It's been stated time and time again, that it will COST 1.5 trillion, but it's paid for (not like Medicare plan D or the Iraq War with the last administration) with Medicare cuts and the tax on the upper class and ultimately WILL help the deficit because our nation spends SO much money, and will only continue to spend more, on people that can't afford to pay for their hospital visits. It WILL bankrupt us if we just keep sweeping it under the rug and pretend like everything is fine. An SGR (it's SGR by the way) bill is already going to be voted on pretty soon (HR 3961), so you can finally stop whining about how it's not in HR 3962 (although I doubt that's why you're really against it). In terms of there not being enough doctors, prove it (article or something), and even then what? We're supposed to keep people uninsured until we finally have what you believe to be a sufficient amount of doctors? I don't feel it's the government's job really to get more physicians out there, more of the medical schools' responsibility, which they're already doing (class sizes are increasing every year). You're just essentially coming up with random speculation towards the end of your argument and theories, no facts. ANDTHE ONLY TAX DONE WILL BE ON THOSE THAT ARE STILL UNINSURED AFTER THIS BILL (which is understandable because they're doing everything in their power to make it affordable now) AND THOSE MAKING OVER A CERTAIN INCOME, that's far from everyone. I'm not claiming for this to be a magic bullet, but it WILL help.
 
We DON'T according to every study. Research it. You can find it in practically EVERY study. About the only thing we might be winners in is cancer survivability and that's it. And where did you get this info that "no one in America goes to Canada because their system is SO awful and everyone from Canada comes to America because our healthcare is SO great?" Just hearing it from a friend, of a friend, of a friend (or fox news, which is equivalent to that) is not really a legit source. Have you ever even KNOWN a Canadian, for the record? And did he/she say that they came here for our health system? Please give us a news source or something, because just saying something and not really having the facts to back it up only adds to the already piling layer of b.s. that's making the easily manipulated question health care reform.

And also, this is BOTH an uninsured issue AND a cost issue. Ultimately, when costs get TOO high, which is going to happen if we continue to let rates go up uninhibitted, you're going to get more UNINSURED. It's common sense. What exactly is the problem with telling these CEOs: "Um, you need to start lowering rates for EVERYONE because this is getting ridiculous." I don't understand the oppositions problem with lowering insurance rates for everyone or making sure everyone's covered by health insurance? Don't people WANT to save money? Don't future doctors WANT their future patients to be insured? Don't people want our deficit to be reduced? I thought all those things were good? Am I living in the twilight zone or something where things are backward? Or has it been reverse day for the last 4 months?


So you degrade my response for not having a source, yet you state something without having a source? Please show me a study that says our quality of medical care is not the best in the world. I define quality of care as access to the most competent physicians and other healthcare members and access to the most cutting edge medical technology. And if you do the typical liberal thing of quoting life expectancy and infant mortality, I will do little more than laugh. These things have very little to do with medical care and much more to do with overall healthcare. The average american is obese, smokes, and abuses alcohol. We have the highest rates of drug abuse in the world. We have some of the highest rates of violence in the world. We have the highest rates of obesity in the world. We have some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world. None of these things have anything to do with medical care.

Fix these problems and you will do much more than cutting compensation of physicians. Fix our programs directed at healthcare (drug programs, obesity programs, pregnancy programs, smoking programs, etc., etc, etc) and you will dramatically lower healthcare costs.

However, this will likely never happen because our country always looks for the easy way out. For instance, instead of actually trying to improve inner-city schools and give students the education they deserve, we instead shaft them and insert an affirmative action system; expect the same with improving healthcare.
 
You think WHO studies are "oft-cited?" What studies DO you believe? The ones that prove your point, right? I've read this study that's actually QUITE interesting: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Seems that France and Japan are RIGHT up there with the U.S. in cancer survivability, and guess what? They have GOVERNMENT health care systems. There goes that theory that having a government plan "decreases quality." And also, guess what? They spend LESS on their healthcare, not the outrageous prices we pay for insurance here in the U.S. THEY GET MORE OUT OF HEALTHCARE FOR LESS OF THE COST. Isn't that what all the studies have been saying? I haven't read polls on heart disease, but I'm certain it'll have the same outcome..

They spend less on healthcare because half of their population isn't pregnant at the age of 15, obese, addicted to heroin, an alcoholic, addicted to cigarettes, or just plain lazy. Also, their physicians don't order 10 extra un-necessary tests because their leaders were not lawyers and didn't feel the need to protect their cronies when they reformed healthcare. All of these things jack up the price of our healthcare. Oh and add up the cost of 10 million illegals receiving free healthcare at every ER they go to. It should seem obvious why we spend more money than Japan and France. How don't you get this?
 
So you degrade my response for not having a source, yet you state something without having a source? Please show me a study that says our quality of medical care is not the best in the world. I define quality of care as access to the most competent physicians and other healthcare members and access to the most cutting edge medical technology. And if you do the typical liberal thing of quoting life expectancy and infant mortality, I will do little more than laugh. These things have very little to do with medical care and much more to do with overall healthcare. The average american is obese, smokes, and abuses alcohol. We have the highest rates of drug abuse in the world. We have some of the highest rates of violence in the world. We have the highest rates of obesity in the world. We have some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world. None of these things have anything to do with medical care.

Fix these problems and you will do much more than cutting compensation of physicians. Fix our programs directed at healthcare (drug programs, obesity programs, pregnancy programs, smoking programs, etc., etc, etc) and you will dramatically lower healthcare costs.

However, this will likely never happen because our country always looks for the easy way out. For instance, instead of actually trying to improve inner-city schools and give students the education they deserve, we instead shaft them and insert an affirmative action system; expect the same with improving healthcare.

Actually HappySlappy did have a source, the link is right in his last post.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

By the way Kudos HappySlappy on your excellent contribution to the cause of light and justice😀 Keep up the good work😀
 
Japan's healthcare is hardly a prime example of what we should aim for. They're in a worse situation that we are, and they have the holy public option!
 
i think a lot of the apprehensions people hold about this public option is the lowered reimbursement rates (read: medicare/medicaid) and lack of malpractice reform. I don't understand people's qualms about having the government take over and tell physicians how to treat their patients, because health insurance and malpractice insurance companies already dictate how medicine is practiced in America.

Health insurance availability to all is not communism.

You wouldn't understand people's qualms about the government telling physicians how to treat their patients because you have never been in a system like this. Join the military and you will understand.
 
Actually HappySlappy did have a source, the link is right in his last post.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

By the way Kudos HappySlappy on your excellent contribution to the cause of light and justice😀 Keep up the good work😀

No you're wrong. He gave a source for what I said. He said we don't have the highest quality of care in the world. I said we do. This article says we have high quality of care. Try again.
 
So you degrade my response for not having a source, yet you state something without having a source? Please show me a study that says our quality of medical care is not the best in the world. I define quality of care as access to the most competent physicians and other healthcare members and access to the most cutting edge medical technology. And if you do the typical liberal thing of quoting life expectancy and infant mortality, I will do little more than laugh. These things have very little to do with medical care and much more to do with overall healthcare. The average american is obese, smokes, and abuses alcohol. We have the highest rates of drug abuse in the world. We have some of the highest rates of violence in the world. We have the highest rates of obesity in the world. We have some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world. None of these things have anything to do with medical care.

Fix these problems and you will do much more than cutting compensation of physicians. Fix our programs directed at healthcare (drug programs, obesity programs, pregnancy programs, smoking programs, etc., etc, etc) and you will dramatically lower healthcare costs.

However, this will likely never happen because our country always looks for the easy way out. For instance, instead of actually trying to improve inner-city schools and give students the education they deserve, we instead shaft them and insert an affirmative action system; expect the same with improving healthcare.

I'll give you a few, where are yours? And I just have to LOL at the restrictions you've set on the statistics I have to find. So basically I can't find a statistic on ANY medical condition because it always goes back to the people being fat and lazy right? In all fairness it's the typical conservative thing to blame others for being lazy and wanting to keep everything the same. You should be thankful for us libs, if it weren't for liberals, we would have never gotten out of the Great Depression back in the 30's and Medicare would have never existed (you all seem so keen on protecting it now).

Spending (we were number 2 back in '05):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

Overall in 2000 #72 (taking into account level or responsiveness, distribution, spending, ect). In all fairness, we were at the top for level of responsiveness:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Harvard study on how 45,000 deaths a year are attributed to lack of insurance:

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.e...0-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Health insurance premiums up 131% in the last 10 years. Want it to go any higher because I'm pretty sure they're not done yet?

http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/

There, tried to stear away from those "useless" heart disease and diabetes studies. You know, in Canada (single payer system) they actually provide pay incentives for doctors to help patients quit smoking or lose weight. As I've stated before, I see insuring people as an opportunity to be told DIRECTLY by a doctor to lose weight and live healthy repeatedly rather than for them to just ignore what is going on. They may not listen, but it's worth the effort. And even if they don't listen, we HAVE the medications to treat them. We can't just LET THEM DIE because "they deserve it."
 
Japan's healthcare is hardly a prime example of what we should aim for. They're in a worse situation that we are, and they have the holy public option!


What about France, Canada, and Australia? They were up there too. I think being at the top for treating cancer and still providing affordable coverage is REALLY quite impressive, I think it SHOULD be what we should aim for.

VA hospitals (equivalent to government run healthcare) aren't perfect, but they're not doing too shabby. They're getting access to all the latest breaking technology:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm
 
I'll give you a few, where are yours? And I just have to LOL at the restrictions you've set on the statistics I have to find. So basically I can't find a statistic on ANY medical condition because it always goes back to the people being fat and lazy right? In all fairness it's the typical conservative thing to blame others for being lazy and wanting to keep everything the same. You should be thankful for us libs, if it weren't for liberals, we would have never gotten out of the Great Depression back in the 30's and Medicare would have never existed (you all seem so keen on protecting it now).

Spending (we were number 2 back in '05):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

Overall in 2000 #72 (taking into account level or responsiveness, distribution, spending, ect). In all fairness, we were at the top for level of responsiveness:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Harvard study on how 45,000 deaths a year are attributed to lack of insurance:

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.e...0-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Health insurance premiums up 131% in the last 10 years. Want it to go any higher because I'm pretty sure they're not done yet?

http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/

There, tried to stear away from those "useless" heart disease and diabetes studies. You know, in Canada (single payer system) they actually provide pay incentives for doctors to help patients quit smoking or lose weight. As I've stated before, I see insuring people as an opportunity to be told DIRECTLY by a doctor to lose weight and live healthy repeatedly rather than for them to just ignore what is going on. They may not listen, but it's worth the effort. And even if they don't listen, we HAVE the medications to treat them. We can't just LET THEM DIE because "they deserve it."

And if it wasn't for republicans, we would still have slavery. If it wasn't for democrats, we would have never gotten involved in Vietnam. Spare me with your history lessons. Both sides have done good and bad. You seem to just be in the Obama college fan club because it is the cool college thing to do. You're probably wearing your northface jacket right now as we speak.

Oh and once again, none of those links have any relevance to The U.S.'s quality of medical care. The uninsured and the price of care have nothing to do with quality. Again, quality is the competence of the medical staff and the level of cutting edge equipment available to the medical staff for their disposal.

I never said the uninsured and the prices of premiums are not problems; however, medical care only makes up 10% of our healthcare ("Healthcare Half Truths" by Garson) and this bill is largely failing to address this.

If you really want to understand the difference between medical care and healthcare, read "Healthcare Half Truths." There is a major difference and most people in this debate don't understand this.
 
They spend less on healthcare because half of their population isn't pregnant at the age of 15, obese, addicted to heroin, an alcoholic, addicted to cigarettes, or just plain lazy. Also, their physicians don't order 10 extra un-necessary tests because their leaders were not lawyers and didn't feel the need to protect their cronies when they reformed healthcare. All of these things jack up the price of our healthcare. Oh and add up the cost of 10 million illegals receiving free healthcare at every ER they go to. It should seem obvious why we spend more money than Japan and France. How don't you get this?


LOL It always goes back to being the patient's fault right? I get reprimanded for this, but it's truly SAD how you all are SO jaded before even hitting/finishing med school. Why bother being a doctor in the first place if you don't think anything can be done for these people? You don't think evidence based medicine is being addressed with these bills and the SGR with Medicare? Oh, and so you agree that costs are running wild, right? So what do you propose be done about it then? Ignore it? Let people continue to be fat, lazy, ect? Continue to let people go to the ER on the tax payer's/deficit's expense? I'd really LOVE to see everyone's genius plan on getting everyone to lose weight, and quit smoking, and insured somehow even with these high insurance rates, and getting all the illegal aliens out of America without any of the ideas in these proposed bills in Congress. In my opinion, we might as well cover them because medications will at least slow the rate of progression for their conditions before they hit an Emergency room.
 
LOL It always goes back to being the patient's fault right? I get reprimanded for this, but it's truly SAD how you all are SO jaded before even hitting/finishing med school. Why bother being a doctor in the first place if you don't think anything can be done for these people? You don't think evidence based medicine is being addressed with these bills and the SGR with Medicare? Oh, and so you agree that costs are running wild, right? So what do you propose be done about it then? Ignore it? Let people continue to be fat, lazy, ect? Continue to let people go to the ER on the tax payer's/deficit's expense? I'd really LOVE to see everyone's genius plan on getting everyone to lose weight, and quit smoking, and insured somehow even with these high insurance rates, and getting all the illegal aliens out of America without any of the ideas in these proposed bills in Congress. In my opinion, we might as well cover them because medications will at least slow the rate of progression for their conditions before they hit an Emergency room.

STOP capitalizing every OTHER word for EMPHASIS. It makes YOU look ABSOLUTELY ******ED!

The SGR is not being negotiated. The move to revamp the formula was stuck from the bill. And I also don't see how spending another trillion dollars is going to reign in costs, but I'll be damned if those damn Nazi conservatives aren't going to let us build another failed social welfare system. YES WE CAN!!! Amiright?!?!
 
What about France, Canada, and Australia? They were up there too. I think being at the top for treating cancer and still providing affordable coverage is REALLY quite impressive, I think it SHOULD be what we should aim for.

VA hospitals (equivalent to government run healthcare) aren't perfect, but they're not doing too shabby. They're getting access to all the latest breaking technology:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm

As a veteran, I can do little more than laugh at your post. The healthcare teams at VA hospitals and hospitals in the military have great intentions; however, they are subject to the bureaucratic machine which is large government, and because of this, their good intentions fall short and standard hurry up and wait business becomes the norm.

And are you honestly saying veterans have access to care? Are you that ignorant? Do you know how many veterans with PTSD have failed to receive the care they deserve.

......Just once again.....did you honestly say the VA system is what we should strive for? I sure hope if we have government run medical care, it will be nothing like the VA.
 
STOP capitalizing every OTHER word for EMPHASIS. It makes YOU look ABSOLUTELY ******ED!

The SGR is not being negotiated. The move to revamp the formula was stuck from the bill. And I also don't see how spending another trillion dollars is going to reign in costs, but I'll be damned if those damn Nazi conservatives aren't going to let us build another failed social welfare system. YES WE CAN!!! Amiright?!?!

Where/when did you read/hear that it's not being negotioted because this article was pretty recent and claims that they were repealing the pay decrease with this bill and going with a "pay as you go" system.....

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20091116/REG/911139984#

And ooooooh, I just love when someone throws out "******ed" or any personal insult in an argument. It just means they got nothing better to work with other than personal attacks.

I'm done, officially this time. As my final statement, I leave you all this: I HOPE (yes I caps locked it) to God, you guys are going into medicine to actually help people and not just leave them to fend for themselves because they're supposedly "fat, lazy, ect.," otherwise you'll be wasting your time in this profession. You can leave an explanation for others to see on how you're fixing all of this, but I unfortunately won't read it (nor I believe you all actually have a better idea).

And I've stated before, my ideal health care system is a Single Payer system, not a VA hospital (I know it has it's flaws, but the fact that veterans still get the benefit of ANY health care rather than none at all is better in my opinion). I think government plans (Japan, France, and UK) still have SO many more pros compared to our current system so I'm not against that idea either. Do you know of any veterans that move on to private coverage because they're frustrated with their free care?
 
To those who think looking at other socialized medicine systems (Canada, Britain) provides a compelling reason for the US to adopt one, please consider the drastic differences between the US and these countries. In the US we have a very strong sense of liberty and the purchasing power of the consumer. Prime example: There is NO way the elderly in Canada/Britain get anywhere near the level of coverage/benefits that the elderly do in this country. Right or wrong, we treat our elderly very well (too well imo).

If we were to adopt a socialized system, we would have to outlaw private insurance (socialized systems fall apart in the face of competition that cherry picks the low risk people out and causes the system to economically collapse) as well as cash services (same idea as private insurance). This is fundamentally anti-american in a multitude of ways, but just think of it in terms of yourself:

Youre 70 and break your hip in a freak accident, but are pretty healthy otherwise, do you want to be able to get a hip replacement? What happens when the government (which controls healthcare in socialized land) determines that, unfortunately, we can no longer cover that expense because most people who get the replacements die within a few years anyways and they are really expensive. Guess you're screwed because the government exterminated ANY CHANCE of you being able to use YOUR OWN money to buy healthcare for yourself.

While this may seem like an extreme example, take a closer look at Canada. This happens all the time, except they are fortunate enough to live near America, which will replace their hips for a fee.

Not to mention these socialized systems have a multitude of fiscal problems in themselves and the "outcome" statistics oft used to support them unfairly penalize the US because of our penchant for drug abuse and guns compared to other countries.

Socialized medicine/"public option"/the government is not the answer, and once we go down that path there is no going back. Ever.
 
To those who think looking at other socialized medicine systems (Canada, Britain) provides a compelling reason for the US to adopt one, please consider the drastic differences between the US and these countries. In the US we have a very strong sense of liberty and the purchasing power of the consumer. Prime example: There is NO way the elderly in Canada/Britain get anywhere near the level of coverage/benefits that the elderly do in this country. Right or wrong, we treat our elderly very well (too well imo).

If we were to adopt a socialized system, we would have to outlaw private insurance (socialized systems fall apart in the face of competition that cherry picks the low risk people out and causes the system to economically collapse) as well as cash services (same idea as private insurance). This is fundamentally anti-american in a multitude of ways, but just think of it in terms of yourself:

Youre 70 and break your hip in a freak accident, but are pretty healthy otherwise, do you want to be able to get a hip replacement? What happens when the government (which controls healthcare in socialized land) determines that, unfortunately, we can no longer cover that expense because most people who get the replacements die within a few years anyways and they are really expensive. Guess you're screwed because the government exterminated ANY CHANCE of you being able to use YOUR OWN money to buy healthcare for yourself.

While this may seem like an extreme example, take a closer look at Canada. This happens all the time, except they are fortunate enough to live near America, which will replace their hips for a fee.

Not to mention these socialized systems have a multitude of fiscal problems in themselves and the "outcome" statistics oft used to support them unfairly penalize the US because of our penchant for drug abuse and guns compared to other countries.

Socialized medicine/"public option"/the government is not the answer, and once we go down that path there is no going back. Ever.

Sorry, one more, TOO good to resist. Ummmm, last I heard, our elderly are allowed to get these hip replacement surgeries because of a "socialized" system called Medicare. The fact that this government program is so good to fix hips and things of the sort is probably why they're so upset about the medicare cuts (which are just removing subsidies for extended private coverage by the way). I also doubt Canada just lets old people walk around with broken hips, at least nowadays. Sounds like a propagated myth by people who will say anything to prevent us from going into a single payer system just like "death panels" and that "Stephen Hawkins would have died if he didn't come to America." Okay, I'm officially done now! 🙂
 
Medicare is also rapidly overtaking our GDP and will kick out our defense budget in ~25 years, so I hardly think its a great system. My point for bringing it up was to address the difference in social attitudes between the US and other countries. In the US, we do not say no to people, especially people that have cash in hand and will pay, no matter how ridiculous the tx is.

Dont believe its happening? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html Sure they get care.... after waiting in an arbitrary line they have no control over. Its like waiting for an organ transplant, except the government decides when you get to have it instead of chance.

Not saying we're perfect, but at least our system of rationing (which is nigh nonexistent *cough*) isn't age-dependent. When you have money and you want something, you get it. In Canada that isnt that case. You decide which scenario is more in line with what the founding fathers believed in.
 
Medicare is also rapidly overtaking our GDP and will kick out our defense budget in ~25 years, so I hardly think its a great system. My point for bringing it up was to address the difference in social attitudes between the US and other countries. In the US, we do not say no to people, especially people that have cash in hand and will pay, no matter how ridiculous the tx is.

Dont believe its happening? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html Sure they get care.... after waiting in an arbitrary line they have no control over. Its like waiting for an organ transplant, except the government decides when you get to have it instead of chance.

Not saying we're perfect, but at least our system of rationing (which is nigh nonexistent *cough*) isn't age-dependent. When you have money and you want something, you get it. In Canada that isnt that case. You decide which scenario is more in line with what the founding fathers believed in.


Aaaaaand 1 more, promise, last one. I just thought we can use a Canadian perspective on this forum (you can even go in the comments section about people actually going TO Canada for their cheaper medications and healthcare which debunks the myth that people only come from Canada to America and not the other way around):

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
 
Stopped reading after "Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes."

This is false. US outcomes are at the top if not the best if you factor out drug addicts and gunshot wounds. This author, like so many others, ignores the completely different populations of the US and Canada. You can't compare America's large population of crack addicted mothers' infant mortality rates with Canada and expect it to be fair. If we exported all of our crack moms to Canada their infant mortality rates would skyrocket too.

A balanced look at the two systems:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/
 
Stopped reading after "Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes."

This is false. US outcomes are at the top if not the best if you factor out drug addicts and gunshot wounds. This author, like so many others, ignores the completely different populations of the US and Canada. You can't compare America's large population of crack addicted mothers' infant mortality rates with Canada and expect it to be fair. If we exported all of our crack moms to Canada their infant mortality rates would skyrocket too.

A balanced look at the two systems:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/


Aaaaaaand 1 more (I seriously have to burn my computer thanks to this thread). You should read the comments in this link, seriously. All you need to know about why I support the single payer system are in the comments to this link you posted (and why this study is not as accurate as everyone says it is, which I didn't even think about so I gotta thank them for pointing it out). The study ALMOST had me second guessing myself, I'll admit, but everyone that made a comment on this link basically just bolstered my position. Seriously, read the comments, enlightening.
 
I did read them--I dont think they discredit the data or the author's interpretation of it. Just keep an open mind about it is all I am asking. If single payer were the grand solution to America's health woes it would have been done. There is a reason we havent done it and its because our society is different (both socially and medically) from the other, more homogeneous test cases in Europe and Canada.

There is nowhere near enough information (let alone neutral information) to determine if single payer would work or be a complete disaster. As it stands, we have a pretty good health system for insured people (~70% of our population), albeit a costly one. Completely aborting it for an irreversible government-reliant ideology pet project seems like an irresponsible sacrifice of our freedom and a betrayal of the capitalistic ideals that made the US a superpower. I say try to fix what we have before blowing it to pieces and passing the mantle into the hands of a select few detached and biased politicians.
 
There is nowhere near enough information (let alone neutral information) to determine if single payer would work or be a complete disaster.

Except for the three times we have tried it in the United States all with complete failure. Is there something new about this time that makes it different? (answer is no).
 
Except for the three times we have tried it in the United States all with complete failure. Is there something new about this time that makes it different? (answer is no).

Could you refresh my memory as to those three times? Thanks.
 
I am graduating early and will lose health insurance between when I graduate and when I matriculate into dental school. My father is a state employee and has great health insurance but, unfortunately, the cost to cover me for those 8 months is $370/month. My parents make a little over $75k a year and just paying my coverage alone is too much for them when they have two kids in college.

Needless to say, my opinion on this issue comes from the fact that I get to see it from a different perspective.
 
......Just once again.....did you honestly say the VA system is what we should strive for? I sure hope if we have government run medical care, it will be nothing like the VA.

First off, thank you for your service.

The story of the VA is a lot more complex than its common perception. It does hold some virtues that the private health market cannot yet match, in terms of coordination of care, record keeping, and cost control. If you took the entire population of veterans, as laden as they are with PTSD, drug addiction, smoking, alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and dumped them into the private system they probably wouldn't fare any better. And it would cost a lot more.

If you search the literature there is a growing body of comparative research on the VA's quality. Here is one:

Effect of the Transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the Quality of Care. NEJM 348:2218-2227, 2003.

Background In the mid-1990s, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system initiated a systemwide reengineering to, among other things, improve its quality of care. We sought to determine the subsequent change in the quality of health care and to compare the quality with that of the Medicare fee-for-service program.
Methods Using data from an ongoing performance-evaluation program in the VA, we evaluated the quality of preventive, acute, and chronic care. We assessed the change in quality-of-care indicators from 1994 (before reengineering) through 2000 and compared the quality of care with that afforded by the Medicare fee-for-service system, using the same indicators of quality.
Results In fiscal year 2000, throughout the VA system, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care was 90 percent or greater for 9 of 17 quality-of-care indicators and exceeded 70 percent for 13 of 17 indicators. There were statistically significant improvements in quality from 1994–1995 through 2000 for all nine indicators that were collected in all years. As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators.
Conclusions The quality of care in the VA health care system substantially improved after the implementation of a systemwide reengineering and, during the period from 1997 through 2000, was significantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program. These data suggest that the quality-improvement initiatives adopted by the VA in the mid-1990s were effective.
 
I am graduating early and will lose health insurance between when I graduate and when I matriculate into dental school. My father is a state employee and has great health insurance but, unfortunately, the cost to cover me for those 8 months is $370/month. My parents make a little over $75k a year and just paying my coverage alone is too much for them when they have two kids in college.

Needless to say, my opinion on this issue comes from the fact that I get to see it from a different perspective.

How much is your school charging you for insurance? I know the UCs charge something like 1500/quarter x 3 quarters=4500, which is about the same as that cost (except its missing 3 months out of the year...). If you feel you need/want health insurance during that gap, get a job and pay for it. Depending on your age/health status/preexisitng conditions, this is more or less a waste of money.

The reason insurance for young people costs so much despite our low utilization is cost shifting/risk pooling. The elderly/sick use up so many healthcare dollars with no restraint, that the insurance company, in order to stay profitable, has to take that money from somewhere else (ie the young). One of the ideas tossed around in the house healthcare bill was mandating coverage of people with preexisting conditions. This idea will not ever work unless EVERYONE is mandated to buy insurance and the high risk people are shared between insurance companies. This is effectively a government-regulated private subsidy (in the form of my/your premium dollars) of the very sick. Unfortunately there is a provision in the bill requiring all individuals to have health insurance OR pay a tax of 2.5% of their TOTAL income. If the young are to subsidize the elderly, at least let us have a voice in shaping the bill.....
 
Last edited:
Top