Tea Party march on Washington / Single Payer healthcare

[Daxx]

You're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.

This is prehaps the biggest problem with private healthcare currently in any nation. Out of interest could you point me in the direction of what you feel is an "average" policy? or maybe give me an average figure of how much people in the us pay for healthcare as i could figure out average policy from there? I can not find a definate figure ><

Once i have an idea i can compare it to the costs for an individual from England. Then compare what both cover for the money, and see if we can get some sort of  conclusion for which more cost effective for the treatment they get.

I don't feel I have the in depth knowledge or the data required to make that call, but the best place to start is to try to get lots of results from lots of different studies. A quick Google gives me a few figures, but it's hard to figure out what is representative, let alone average.

"The federal government tracks average spending on health insurance for people with job-based coverage. The most recent figures are from 2005, and indicate that the average individual's job-based premiums were $3,991 that year, while families spent an average of $10,728." Says About.com (http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/faqs/f/avgpremium.htm), who emphasise just how difficult it is to get a picture of average care given the complexities of the market.
"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost", according to this site (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml).

A lot of the results show data from before 2007/6, which isn't helpful given that premiums are rising faster than inflation and so data from more than a couple of years ago are not representative. Also, most of the data are about employer-coverage (which makes up a sizable proportion of the market, but it's again not fully representative) since it's the easiest to track, but simply looking at that isn't going to give us the full picture.

[Evil Hamster]

So much to catch up on!  I should be going to bed, but..... 

I know this isn't the main part of the debate, but I feel like its pretty important. Actually, almost all those things are socialised benefits provided by the government by using taxpayer funds. Say someone breaks into your home, shoots you and sets your house on fire. You think the government should arrest the perpetrator, douse the fire, and then leave you to die? I don't see campaigns to privatise police forces or fire brigades. This is one of my major problems with libertarian philosophy. It is hugely inconsistent to call for the abolishment of 'socialist' governments which every day spends your money to make sure you don't get mugged, comes to your rescue if you do, saves you from fires, makes sure the cars you drive are within stringent safety regulations, maintains the roads you drive them on, provides you with subsidised public transport, maintains your telecommunications exchanges, bails out the shonky businesses you invested in when they go broke, makes provisions for the preservation of wildlife and national parks, builds and maintains vital infrastructure etc etc. And all with the publicly known motive of what is in the best interests of the people.

Definition from Wikipedia:
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation

Please explain how that applies to police, fire, etc.

Enforcement of laws, maintaining the peace, ensuring safety etc have nothing to do with socialism. Those are legitimate functions of government in society. Socialism is taking something from one person and giving it to another who didn't earn it under the threat of force- because it's not "fair" that one person should have something that another doesn't even if that person worked hard to earn or produce it.

The government is held accountable by the people who will not re-elect it if it does not do a good job (i know this is slightly theoretical - look at bush lol). In the privatisation of any public service, such as healthcare, who holds big business accountable? And what is big business' motive? Thats right, as you were so eager to proclaim; profit. It boils down to who you would rather trust; the democratically elected representatives of the people held accountable by the democratic proces, or the greedy big business moneygrubbers who are held accountable by nothing. The profit motive is an extremely unethical motive. Where does the name 'Ponzi Scheme' come from? Was it a government? Or a business tycoon?

The problem is- there is really no choice in elections currently. We have the socialist party (democrats) and the socialist "lite" party (republicans). They have been in power so long they have made laws to prevent any real choice. Seriously- JOHN MCAIN was the best they could come up with??  You mentioned Bush jokingly, but he is a perfect example. Tell me- what is the difference between Bush and Obama? Other than Obama gutting the military and using Bush as a scapegoat for everything- the only difference is the speed with which the government is growing. For the first 6 years of Bush, while the republicans had control of congress there was at least an attempt to pretend they were being fiscally responsible- even though they werent they tried to maintain the facade. Then the democrats took over congress and Bush showed his true colors and the economy started to tank. Now with Obama in the White house the politicians, loby groups and special interests are on a drunken orgy stealing the US treasury stuffing cash into every orifice of their bodies as fast as it can be printed. All the while pointing at companies saying how evil and greedy THEY are.

Ironically- Europe is now following the US and electing Bush style "conservatism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html)

Quote: "Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations."

In other words they call themselves conservative while acting as liberals.

Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was 133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.

I'm not saying this debate shouldn't be had. I'm arguing the debate belongs to the states, not the federal government.

Now I really have to get to bed... Try and catch up on this thread tomorrow!

[Evil Hamster]

Also i will concede one point. I never factored in if the US goverment would put cost as its only factor and put in laws to stop people getting the treatment if it is costly for them. As i dont know much about how your laws get worded and how your court system works, ill leave it too those who know more.

I actually read in the bill posted on the internet- they will factor in your "expected lifespan", expected "productivity" over that lifespan (contributions to society), TAX RECORDS!!, handicaps, etc versus the cost of a certain treatment to decide if you will get that treatment or not. I don't remember the page and I'm not about to go hunt it down right now, but I can't imagine any concept more horrific.

The one question the "Tea Partiers" asked at the town halls they could get in to every congressman was- would you (the congressman) put yourself in the plan you're going to pass? The answer: the bill specifically prohibits them from joining that healthcare plan.

The day Obama comes out and says he will submit himself and his family to the plan he wants is the day I change my position on it.

I would like to add i think your constitution is outdated. Personal point only, but its so old now that it causes just as many problems as it fixes or stops. Laws need to change to flux with society, not be constant.

The constitution is not a law. It is a set of principles and limits that the government is supposed to operate under when passing laws. Principles can never be outdated. It was written and worded very carefully so that those principles would apply no matter what the circumstances. The authors knew human nature- that power corrupts. They set up three branches of government- the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The three branches are supposed to be antagonistic watchdogs over each other in order to prevent a government that will run roughshod over people's lives. Basically the federal government is supposed to be responsible for common defense, make sure that the states all play fair with other and protect citizens rights. That's what the Constitution says. It is not supposed to run every facet of our lives, not take over major industries, not "bail out" failed companies or banks, not dictate "education" to the states. The abandonment of the Constitution and growth of government started under Rosevelt, small steps, a little bit at a time and now is a raging behemoth that can't even get out of it's own way.

Off topic: i look forward to more questions/debates from you hamster. You have an grown up posting style, and you seem like a guy whos happy to chance his viewpoints as the evidence changes. Also you do know what you are on about. Last point: your right on the global warming bit.

I enjoy a good debate, just wish I had a bit more time in the day to post in here more often

[Uzra]

Just a comment on what is proposed.

Suppose you, as an individual, go to an insurance company and ask for insurance.  They will charge you as much as they can. This is fine, part of the free market, etc.  Let's call this individual price X.

Suppose you, as an individual, go to an internet service provider.  They will also charge you as much as they can. Let us call this price Y.

Suppose you and your 19 employees, as a group, are going to use the same insurance company.  Now 'as much as they can' changes.  They will charge you less than 20X to make sure they get all of you.  The ISP will also charge less than 20Y.  The larger the group, the larger the change in 'as much as they can'.  So in general the largest group gets the best deal.  The 'public option' would only be a large group (the public) shopping for group rates from private insurers.  The only public $ used on the 'public option' would be for administration fees.  Private insurers still pay the doctors, and anyone using the public option still pays for the insurance, albeit at a discount.  But the whole process is voluntary for all participants. It's entirely free market orientated.

Just clarifying.

[various-guises]

Good post uzra. and lol daxx

Just to make the dabate more complicated, is obama going for the best option? Or is he just going for the option that will win the most votes (from peeps who can now get healthcare), while making sure its all voluntary to keep everyone else happy? Or is there another motive behind this does anyone know?

[various-guises]

hamster:
At least you didnt quote the daily mail this time lmfao. Anyway;

I actually read in the bill posted on the internet- they will factor in your "expected lifespan", expected "productivity" over that lifespan (contributions to society), TAX RECORDS!!, handicaps, etc versus the cost of a certain treatment to decide if you will get that treatment or not. I don't remember the page and I'm not about to go hunt it down right now, but I can't imagine any concept more horrific.

The one question the "Tea Partiers" asked at the town halls they could get in to every congressman was- would you (the congressman) put yourself in the plan you're going to pass? The answer: the bill specifically prohibits them from joining that healthcare plan.

The day Obama comes out and says he will submit himself and his family to the plan he wants is the day I change my position on it.

Interesting, ill have a read of the bill myself see if i can find it.


Also you say the ruling parties have made laws to prevent choice, while off topic, I would like to point out that The constitution was intended to do that so you have never really had any choice. Definately you have more now than then.

Evidence: Their were three main aims of the revolution for the monied class at the time, Self rule obviously but also to protect their interests in slavery (which was institutionalized) and also to claim more land which the British goverment had recently outlawed.
Originally the Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

At first i believe you had to have a certain ammount of land (i forget how much) before you were allowed to vote.The reason this changed was that the constitution allowed each state to choose who could vote. So over time white males gained the right to vote, and so on. AT this time you had a republic.

Since the seventeenth ammendment U.S. Senaters (sp?) have been elected directly by the voters.
So you have since then had a democratic(or constitutional depending on what your view is)-republic.  (As a law grad i should know this really...but im really bad with dates so.anyone remember the year this came into force?)

Think i got all that right. Any americans are welcome to point out if anything i just said was a lot of old horse manure

[various-guises]

Well as we are not going to get an answer to that any time soon, prehaps we should turn aside from that point.

Posted by: captain haddock
Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was 133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.

This is a fallacy of logic and a confusion of cause and effect. Just because someone does not want the constitution changed does not mean they do not like the changes, just that it should not be changed, if those changes are good or not. It does not! by proxy make them dislike the changes.
By all means argue for changes, just dont assume that means anyone who opposes changes opposes what those changes are.
This is both unfair and is just as bad as him using the constitution to oppose debate over the possible change. Like him you have brought up a different argument to cover the lack of substance to your original one.

edit: Also try to avoid argumentum ad hominem. I know he doesnt, but you are trying to hold your side of the debate, not lower to someone elses standards.

edit 2: I just remembered, its also called a straw man position. Using a different argument to make your position more favourable.

edit 3: im not supporting hamsters side of the debate here btw...if it looks like it? simply pointing out that if you are going to point out his falts, dont use those falts in your argument.

[various-guises]

You're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.

This is prehaps the biggest problem with private healthcare currently in any nation. Out of interest could you point me in the direction of what you feel is an "average" policy? or maybe give me an average figure of how much people in the us pay for healthcare as i could figure out average policy from there? I can not find a definate figure ><

Once i have an idea i can compare it to the costs for an individual from England. Then compare what both cover for the money, and see if we can get some sort of  conclusion for which more cost effective for the treatment they get.

[Belthus]

As for your claims- According to surveys I've seen Canadians at best have an overall mediocer opinion of their healthcare system- compared to the US where most people have a high opinion of our system.

From a 2007 survey from the Commonwealth Fund (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2007/Nov/International-Survey--U-S--Adults-Most-Likely-to-Report-Medical-Errors-and-Skip-Needed-Care-Due-to-C.aspx):

[Daxx]

But about half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills. People on the whole don't save the money towards some fund to pay for hypothetical medical expenses if they don't buy insurance, they spend that money on something else instead. Young people especially have much lower rates of saving than the rest of the population - in that case people aren't making a decision based on whether it's cheaper on average to save or to pay for insurance, they're just gambling on the event occurring or not. In the case you're suggesting, they're going to be hit by large fees, and will probably have to pay massive amounts of money to get onto a high-risk plan in order to pay those fees. It doesn't make much financial sense.

Regardless of whether this will actually cause uptake rates to fall (I don't think either of us have any evidence either way on that, just speculation), isn't there a clause in the bill that requires people to have some form of health insurance? Or is that likely to be removed if the public option gets dropped?

The biggest problem, either way, is with the cost of insurance - the other way to increase coverage is to reduce price, since that way more people will be able to afford it. Unfortunately without some sort of public option there's no incentive for the insurers to be more competitive.

[Daxx]

I disagree, mostly because I think you're missing insurance covering accidents or emergencies, not just ongoing conditions. Opting out of insurance on that premise is gambling that you'll never get hurt, which is kinda stupid. You presumably would be unable to backdate claims prior to taking out the policy.

EDIT: And, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing prohibiting insurance companies from simply jacking up your premiums if you have a pre-existing condition. It's not going to be cost-effective, since the market will adjust to compensate. I highly suspect the legislation is primarily intended to help people who simply cannot get anything in the first place, even if it means that they'd be paying more. What that says about the public option or lack of it is another matter.

[Daxx]

New UN HDI is out today, contains data from 2007.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf

   1.  Norway 0.971 (▬)
   2.  Australia 0.970 (▬)
   3.  Iceland 0.969 (▬)
   4.  Canada 0.966 (▬)
   5.  Ireland 0.965 (▬)
   6.  Netherlands 0.964 (▲ 1)
   7.  Sweden 0.963 (▼ 1)
   8.  France 0.961 (▲ 3)
   9.  Switzerland 0.960 (▬)
  10.  Japan 0.960 (▬)
  11.  Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3)
  12.  Finland 0.959 (▲ 1)
  13.  United States 0.956 (▼ 1)
  14.  Austria 0.955 (▲ 2)
  15.  Spain 0.955 (▬)
  16.  Denmark 0.955 (▼ 2)
  17.  Belgium 0.953 (▬)
  18.  Italy 0.951 (▲ 1)
  19.  Liechtenstein 0.951 (▼ 1)
  20.  New Zealand 0.950 (▬)
  21.  United Kingdom 0.947 (▬)
  22.  Germany 0.947 (▬)
  23.  Singapore 0.944 (▲ 1)
  24.  Hong Kong 0.944 (▼ 1)
  25.  Greece 0.942 (▬)
  26.  South Korea 0.937 (▬)

From Wikipedia:

The HDI combines three dimensions:
    * Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity
    * Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
    * Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.