NationStates Jolt Archive

Or more appropriately, the unswerving idiocy that is the lack of universal health care.

For Want of a Dentist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html)

The only reason left for opposing health care for all is total contempt for the poor. That's it. No more moronic platitudes about "markets", and no more BS about privatization. Makes me sick!

I support a hybrid between the two, with government providing free or greatly reduced coverage for those who can't afford it while the market handles the actual system and provides insurance to those who don't qualify for government insurance.

I saw this on the news...

Disgusting.

Ha. My dentist doesn't accept private insurance either. It is pay as you go. Dentists are assholes.

But this has nothing to do with insurance companies. It's a failure in the medicare system.

Or more appropriately, the unswerving idiocy that is the lack of universal health care.

For Want of a Dentist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html)

The only reason left for opposing health care for all is total contempt for the poor. That's it. No more moronic platitudes about "markets", and no more BS about privatization. Makes me sick!

The cost to run universal healthcare is a big thing that prevents it to pass. If we passed Universal Healthcare, taxes will be raised and that means less revenue for the government. Also, other programs that are necessary will be affected by it and money will go to that instead of where it needs to go like education and protecting the environment.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

Ha. My dentist doesn't accept private insurance either. It is pay as you go. Dentists are assholes.

But this has nothing to do with insurance companies. It's a failure in the medicare system.
More or less.

I saw this on the news...

Disgusting.

You are right. It is disgusting. Maybe if we forced doctors to actually treat it, we can avoid these problems. Problem is, doctors are afraid of getting sued.

The cost to run universal healthcare is a big thing that prevents it to pass. If we passed Universal Healthcare, taxes will be raised and that means less revenue for the government. Also, other programs that are necessary will be affected by it and money will go to that instead of where it needs to go like education and protecting the environment.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

Well, the US system already costs more than anywhere else. You could actually implement universal healthcare and probably save money.

Of course, there would still be rationing, just of a different nature. Also, I don't really trust US lackwit politicians with complete control. God knows they've fucked it up enough already with their stupid medicare/medicaid bullshit.

BTW, if you have to eat catfood to pay for your prescription, you are stupid, and don't deserve medicine in the first place.

Or more appropriately, the unswerving idiocy that is the lack of universal health care.

For Want of a Dentist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html)

The only reason left for opposing health care for all is total contempt for the poor. That's it. No more moronic platitudes about "markets", and no more BS about privatization. Makes me sick!


This is a sad case I can agree. However our whole national way of life is not geared for national "universal" healthcare. People die every single day because of the lack of "proper" healthcare. Sad thing is there could probably be a story written on a near daily basis of this kind. I do have a feeling that some of the blame is on the parent for not taking care of this properly in the first place.

I think there would have to be sweeping changes in how our nation views and runs our healthcare. I don't know if people are ready for the reality check on doing this. The cost is staggering for a nation the size of the US. Am I against it? That answer would be no. I had experience with the UK's version. What I seen there was basic care for everyone. If you could afford it you could get yourself private coverage that in my opinion rivaled our private system in the US.

The cost to run universal healthcare is a big thing that prevents it to pass. If we passed Universal Healthcare, taxes will be raised and that means less revenue for the government. Also, other programs that are necessary will be affected by it and money will go to that instead of where it needs to go like education and protecting the environment.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

I don't understand. Higher taxes would, logically, mean MORE revenue coming in to the government, not less.

And if we weren't fighting a stupid war in the Middle East, we wouldn't have a huge deficit. Compare that with the figures about universal healthcare and there's a vast difference between the two.

It's not like this is a brand new, novel concept. Other countries have universal, or close to universal, healthcare systems.

The cost to run universal healthcare is a big thing that prevents it to pass. If we passed Universal Healthcare, taxes will be raised and that means less revenue for the government. Also, other programs that are necessary will be affected by it and money will go to that instead of where it needs to go like education and protecting the environment.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

I though we were finally rid of you...

To answer your question in a word. Yes.

In more than a word: If it means I can get in to see a doctor/dentist without an enormous out-of-pocket bill, then "deficit's" be damned.

I don't understand. Higher taxes would, logically, mean MORE revenue coming in to the government, not less.

Actually not really. By raising taxes, you prevent people going out to spend money because they have less money to spend. Since they have less money to spend, less money is flowing around the country. With less money flowing around the country, tax revenues will be declining because people will have less money to give to the government.

And if we weren't fighting a stupid war in the Middle East, we wouldn't have a huge deficit. Compare that with the figures about universal healthcare and there's a vast difference between the two.

I hate to break this to you but we have had a deficit for a hell of a lot longer than today's current political climate.

It's not like this is a brand new, novel concept. Other countries have universal, or close to universal, healthcare systems.

And the US has over 300 Million people people. Very very few countries have that many people in it. The US is what? The third or fourth most populas nation on Earth?

I support a hybrid between the two, with government providing free or greatly reduced coverage for those who can't afford it while the market handles the actual system and provides insurance to those who don't qualify for government insurance.

The you support the current American healthcare system. Which is to say, bad.

What a tragic story. I feel bad for his family. :(

I though we were finally rid of you...

Oh nice. Begin with an insult. :rolleyes: That makes your argument all the more popular. NOT!!!!

Oh nice. Begin with an insult. :rolleyes: That makes your argument all the more popular. NOT!!!!

I've never made any kind of attempt to hide my contempt for you, why should I start now?

I don't understand. Higher taxes would, logically, mean MORE revenue coming in to the government, not less.

And if we weren't fighting a stupid war in the Middle East, we wouldn't have a huge deficit. Compare that with the figures about universal healthcare and there's a vast difference between the two.

It's not like this is a brand new, novel concept. Other countries have universal, or close to universal, healthcare systems.


Higher taxes do not mean more revenue. Just look up what Reagan did in the 80's. He cut the tax rates down and had an economic boom. Thus higher Federal tax receipts. I would suggest learning more about how that works.

Other countries have "universal healthcare". I say that loosely because it is not 100% effective. However the sheer size of the US is a negative. It would be a massive undertaking. I'm not suggesting that we don't try something of a variant. What I am saying that it would be a massive project.

Oh nice. Begin with an insult. :rolleyes: That makes your argument all the more popular. NOT!!!!

Hey Corneliu glad to see you posting here again. Not everyone dislikes you. ;)

Hey Corneliu glad to see you posting here again. Not everyone dislikes you. ;)

OH I know that Marrakech II. And I agree that we should have some sort of healthcare but it should not be all consuming as Unabashed Greed is suggesting.

Or more appropriately, the unswerving idiocy that is the lack of universal health care.

For Want of a Dentist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html)

The only reason left for opposing health care for all is total contempt for the poor. That's it. No more moronic platitudes about "markets", and no more BS about privatization. Makes me sick!

Did you even read the article?

This case is about the ineffectiveness of the Medicaid payment system and the massive paperwork nightmares they create for medical providers. If they'd streamline the bureaucracy and crack down on Medicaid fraud and waste (Medicaid should not pay for Viagra, but here in MS it does:rolleyes: ) they'd have enough money and providers to vastly improve health care for the poor. Instead of fixing the problem you want to give government health care programs even more responsibility and make things a lot worse.

Also, not to be crass, but have these people never heard of a toothbrush? All this could have been avoided with decent dental hygene.

I had no idea teeth could be such a danger. I haven't been to a dentist in nearly 10 years.

I consider myself a libertarian, But Universal Health-care was always the one thing I would compromise on. I believe in Universal Health-care, As long as it doesn't actually ban private health-care.

Did you even read the article?

This case is about the ineffectiveness of the Medicaid payment system and the massive paperwork nightmares they create for medical providers. If they'd streamline the bureaucracy and crack down on Medicaid fraud and waste (Medicaid should not pay for Viagra, but here in MS it does:rolleyes: ) they'd have enough money and providers to vastly improve health care for the poor. Instead of fixing the problem you want to give government health care programs even more responsibility and make things a lot worse.

Also, not to be crass, but have these people never heard of a toothbrush? All this could have been avoided with decent dental hygene.

I brush and floss every day, it didn't stop me from getting cavities. It happens no matter what, that's why it's reccommended you go to a dentist twice a year... if you can afford it. I have to save for a year to go to a dentist, and at one time I was in debt to one for 18 months because I needed an emergency root canal. It's not right.

I had no idea teeth could be such a danger. I haven't been to a dentist in nearly 10 years.

I consider myself a libertarian, But Universal Health-care was always the one thing I would compromise on. I believe in Universal Health-care, As long as it doesn't actually ban private health-care.


Private healthcare will exist in an universal healthcare enviroment. Private practices do very well in the UK and Morocco. Both nations I have had extensive experience in. What basically happens is that the low middle and low class get basic healthcare as in basic. The ones that can afford to have private care through either direct payment or part of an employee contract get better care in my opinion.

Also, not to be crass, but have these people never heard of a toothbrush? All this could have been avoided with decent dental hygene.

That was my first thought reading this. She couldn't afford a $2 toothbrush and $3 worth of toothpaste, so we were expected to pay (at least) $80 to pull the kid's tooth? And now, we have to pay an astronomical amount more. It's a sad story, but why should everyone else (taxpayers) have to pay for her problems? We didn't make her too poor to afford this, much less did we take away the foresight to make a better decision, so why does this burden lie on anyone but her?

Did you even read the article?

This case is about the ineffectiveness of the Medicaid payment system and the massive paperwork nightmares they create for medical providers. If they'd streamline the bureaucracy and crack down on Medicaid fraud and waste (Medicaid should not pay for Viagra, but here in MS it does:rolleyes: ) they'd have enough money and providers to vastly improve health care for the poor.

How does changing what Medicaid pays for increase who will take it? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I have to save for a year to go to a dentist, and at one time I was in debt to one for 18 months because I needed an emergency root canal. It's not right.

I'm calling bullshit right here. How much can a root canal be? And an office visit is only like $100 or something.

How does changing what Medicaid pays for increase who will take it? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I'll go slow so maybe you can follow.

If Medicaid eliminates a lot of its wasteful spending it will have more money. They can then afford to increase the amount they pay providers for services. Medicaid (and private insurances) don't pay what they're billed, they set solid rates which are often far too low for the services in question. As a result many providers do not accept Medicaid as it costs them money. Plus the amount of paperwork and bureaucratic nonsense you have to endure to deal with most Medicaid services is mind boggling. Many doctors just say to hell with it and concentrate on cash and private insurance customers.

Was that simple enough for you, or I should draw you some pretty pictures?

Private healthcare will exist in an universal healthcare enviroment. Private practices do very well in the UK and Morocco. Both nations I have had extensive experience in. What basically happens is that the low middle and low class get basic healthcare as in basic. The ones that can afford to have private care through either direct payment or part of an employee contract get better care in my opinion.

Yes but we must always remember the most significant difference between other western countries and ours is that we have a population of over 300 Million people. Our scale of implementation means that models that worked for the UK and other European countries may fail miserably here. Not that that has anything to do with what I brought up earlier- I'm just remarking on it.

I brush and floss every day, it didn't stop me from getting cavities. It happens no matter what, that's why it's reccommended you go to a dentist twice a year... if you can afford it. I have to save for a year to go to a dentist, and at one time I was in debt to one for 18 months because I needed an emergency root canal. It's not right.

I don't floss or use mouthwash and haven't been to a dentist in almost 3 years and my teeth are fine. The only reason I have several fillings is that when I was younger I had terrible dental hygene and I regret that now. Of course diet and the way you brush play a factor. Improper brushing can cause just as much harm as not brushing at all.

From the Atlanta Dental Group (http://www.atlantadentist.com/root_canal_average_cost.html).

The fee depends on the area of the US and the experience of the dentist but some approximations are: molar $800 to $1,200, bicuspid $700 to $ 1,000, anterior $500 to $850. The charge is usually greater when the root canal has to be redone to correct previous problems. Not all dentists are comfortable enough to retreat a root canal when it fails. Because of the added difficulty and time, it is about $ 200.00 to $ 400.00 more when it has to be retreated a second time.

So either you got hosed on your root canal (overcharging is a problem that needs to be dealt with) or you weren't on a very effective payment plan if it took 18 months to pay back.

I'm calling bullshit right here. How much can a root canal be? And an office visit is only like $100 or something.

The dentist I went to charges $160 for an exam and cleaning, and $1800 for the emergency root canal. No lie.

EDIT: And each filling costs $120

Yes but we must always remember the most significant difference between other western countries and ours is that we have a population of over 300 Million people. Our scale of implementation means that models that worked for the UK and other European countries may fail miserably here. Not that that has anything to do with what I brought up earlier- I'm just remarking on it.

I favor a hybrid system. The government's job would be to provide medical care to the very poor and elderly through existing (albeit heavily reformed) programs. The middle class would benefit from government efforts to control costs through cracking down on overcharging, reining in frivoulous lawsuits (those lawyers who troll for clients on TV are a good place to start), and other measures to reduce the affordability of health insurance for middle class Americans. As for the upper class, fuck them they can afford it. :cool:

The dentist I went to charges $160 for an exam and cleaning, and $1800 for the emergency root canal. No lie.

EDIT: And each filling costs $120

So it isn't that much. You're just bad at budgeting.

I'll go slow so maybe you can follow.

If Medicaid eliminates a lot of its wasteful spending it will have more money. They can then afford to increase the amount they pay providers for services. Medicaid (and private insurances) don't pay what they're billed, they set solid rates which are often far too low for the services in question. As a result many providers do not accept Medicaid as it costs them money. Plus the amount of paperwork and bureaucratic nonsense you have to endure to deal with most Medicaid services is mind boggling. Many doctors just say to hell with it and concentrate on cash and private insurance customers.

Was that simple enough for you, or I should draw you some pretty pictures?

You can provide more than anecdotal, hypothetical "evidence."

That was my first thought reading this. She couldn't afford a $2 toothbrush and $3 worth of toothpaste, so we were expected to pay (at least) $80 to pull the kid's tooth? And now, we have to pay an astronomical amount more. It's a sad story, but why should everyone else (taxpayers) have to pay for her problems? We didn't make her too poor to afford this, much less did we take away the foresight to make a better decision, so why does this burden lie on anyone but her?

Your understanding of the human body is astounding, almost as much as your utter lack of human decency.

"We didn't make the poor poor! If they were worthy of surviving then they would have been born rich like us ahaha!"

You can provide more than anecdotal, hypothetical "evidence."

Let's see, I worked in a drug store for 2 1/2 years and was a first hand witness to Medicaid's wasteful policies and bureaucratic bullshit. My mother works in the Medical records department of the local hospital and many of the providers who don't accept Medicaid work indirectly for the hospital. Finally, my cousin currently works in drug store and is applying to medical school and we've discussed the medicaid situation several times.

I posted my opinions based on my knowledge and experience with the Medicaid system. If you disagree with them, then big fucking deal.

Given that you've offered nothing but a lame, one line "no it won't" post, I'd say I've made the better argument so far.

EDIT: Here's a link that supports what I've been saying.
Medicaid Flaws (http://www.tcf.org/Publications/HealthCare/medicaidbasics-wrong.htm)

You are right. It is disgusting. Maybe if we forced doctors to actually treat it, we can avoid these problems. Problem is, doctors are afraid of getting sued.

and how do you actually plan on FORCING doctors to do anything?

You can't require someone to work for nothing. That's illegal.

and how do you actually plan on FORCING doctors to do anything?

You can't require someone to work for nothing. That's illegal.

Under current law hospitals are required to give medical care to anyone regardless of ability to pay. Doctors aren't bound by that same obligation.

However, their refusal to treat certain paitents has nothing to do with malpractice as the first poster stated but with issues in the Medicaid reimbursement process.

You can't require someone to work for nothing. That's illegal.

The government can make people work on the roads for nothing.

The government can make people work on the roads for nothing.

Are you referring to chain gangs?

Are you referring to chain gangs?

No. The government can conscript any able bodied man to go out and dig ditches and lay roads at any time.

It's perfectly legal.

The dentist I went to charges $160 for an exam and cleaning, and $1800 for the emergency root canal. No lie.

EDIT: And each filling costs $120

pffft..I had a dental implant costing me $4000. I could have gotten it done for Rs 20000 (roughly < $500) in India. I am so :mad:

No. The government can conscript any able bodied man to go out and dig ditches and lay roads at any time.

It's perfectly legal.

you're talking Butler v. Perry.

The exception outlined in Butler, and re-articulated in Arver v. US dealt only with duties owed to the government. Not to individual people. While it may extend to fighting in a war, or building public roads.

It does not extend to requring private people to conduct private business for free. It only applies to duties to the GOVERNMENT.

In terms of this story, it really isnt all that unusual.
The problem is that the bureaucracy of Medicaid is insane. It is a paperwork nightmare, so nobody want to accept it. There are plenty of dentists who are willing to work with you and give you a good discount if you do not have insurance. The ones where I live (a little under an hour east of where this took place) actually give care to those without insurance at cost. They do not do Medicaid as it takes hours of work to process the paperwork and is just too expensive in terms of time spent for paperwork on top of the procedure.

Government bureaucracy and regulation drives up the cost of health care to an astronomical level - if you want to make it more affordable the answer is not to throw on more government paper pushers but to actually reduce the restrictions. Less regulation would reduce the cost and allow doctors to actually do what is right for the patient.

Under current law hospitals are required to give medical care to anyone regardless of ability to pay..

Ahhh, but this is a bit different. First off it's not "medical care" it's emergency care. A hospital can not turn you away, this is true, but ONLY in the case of a medical emergency.

Second, again yes, it's true, they have to accept you regardless of your ability to pay. This doesn't mean however that you don't actually HAVE to pay. They have to admit you for emergency care even if you don't have a dime to your name.

But they will still bill you for it. They still have a right to try and collect against you.

Not in the US, that was a practice in England that was kept in mind by writers of the US constitution. Even in the UK those laws were change a long time ago.

No, this happened in the US. Butler v. Perry...it was 1916 but still.

It does not extend to requring private people to conduct private business for free. It only applies to duties to the GOVERNMENT.

And where did I indicate otherwise? I simply pointed out that the government can go out and make you dig roads for free. Whenever it likes.

And where did I indicate otherwise? I simply pointed out that the government can go out and make you dig roads for free. Whenever it likes.

well, if we go on a 90 year old precident, yes. But based on the context of this dicussion, which has nothing to do with digging roads, the government can't force a doctor to perform on a patient and not attempt to recover compensation.

So yes, you were right with what you said. It is also true that the government can change the national flag when it wants to. Neither of which is really on topic...

Did you even read the article?

This case is about the ineffectiveness of the Medicaid payment system and the massive paperwork nightmares they create for medical providers. If they'd streamline the bureaucracy and crack down on Medicaid fraud and waste (Medicaid should not pay for Viagra, but here in MS it does:rolleyes: ) they'd have enough money and providers to vastly improve health care for the poor. Instead of fixing the problem you want to give government health care programs even more responsibility and make things a lot worse.

Also, not to be crass, but have these people never heard of a toothbrush? All this could have been avoided with decent dental hygene.

thank you!

i was reading the article and scratching my head thinking "how is this a recommendation for government run healthcare?"

And the US has over 300 Million people people. Very very few countries have that many people in it. The US is what? The third or fourth most populous nation on Earth?And? How does the number of people matter?

well, if we go on a 90 year old precident, yes. But based on the context of this dicussion, which has nothing to do with digging roads, the government can't force a doctor to perform on a patient and not attempt to recover compensation.


Your the one that said the government couldn't force people to work for nothing. I simply pointed out that it could in certain circumstances.

And what about gray areas, like a government owned and operated hospital? Is it not conceivable that the government could require doctors to work there a certain number of days a year for free as a duty owed to the government?

Let's see, I worked in a drug store for 2 1/2 years and was a first hand witness to Medicaid's wasteful policies and bureaucratic bullshit

Actually, Medicare and Medicaid have much, much, much lower overhead and administrative costs than private insurers. So they aren't wasteful, they're comparatively quite efficient. HMOs typically spend around 9-10% of their revenues on administrative costs (that'd be any the bureaucracy involved, plus administrative salaries etc., IIRC), while Medicaid runs around 2%. Waaay more efficient. This is one area where the public sector kicks the shit out of the private sector in terms of efficiency.

EDIT: Source: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstest.html , though I got it from some other sources including the National Academies when I wrote a paper on this a while ago.

Interesting how the failure of Medicaid, a government program, triggers calls for expanding government programs...

Actually, Medicare and Medicaid have much, much, much lower overhead and administrative costs than private insurers. So they aren't wasteful, they're comparatively quite efficient. HMOs typically spend around 9-10% of their revenues on administrative costs (that'd be any the bureaucracy involved, plus administrative salaries etc., IIRC), while Medicaid runs around 2%. Waaay more efficient. This is one area where the public sector kicks the shit out of the private sector in terms of efficiency.

EDIT: Source: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstest.html , though I got it from some other sources including the National Academies when I wrote a paper on this a while ago.

The wastefulness comes from more that just administrative costs. The link I posted earlier cites data that as much as 10% of Medicaid outlays can be attributed to cases of fraud. We had quitea few cutomers who worked for cash, and since thet paid no taxes quialified for Medicaid even though they earned decent money. That's kind of stuff needs to dealth with. Also, Medicaid shouldn't be paying for prescriptions like Viagra, which state's do, I have a problem with my tax dollar subsidizing someone else's sex life when mine is in such bad shape.:p

And? How does the number of people matter?

The more people in the system, the more the system is going to have to pay. That is why Social Security is having difficulties. To many people in it and not enough people putting money into it.

Ha. My dentist doesn't accept private insurance either. It is pay as you go. Dentists are assholes.

But this has nothing to do with insurance companies. It's a failure in the medicare system.

My wife's dentist (who I've been meaning to visit since we got married) doesn't accept uninsured payments. Whenever my wife says "I don't have insurance, can you just send me a bill" her dentist says "sure."

In 5 years I have never seen a dental bill arrive.

Interesting how the failure of Medicaid, a government program, triggers calls for expanding government programs...

Yeah. It's like when we had all that crime, and then people were all like "oooohh, criminals are doing stuff. We need more police." Like if the police were able to do anything about crime we'd have such bad crime already. We should have fired a bunch of their asses and waited to see if the ones we kept were any better. :rolleyes:

It's failure is directly attributable to the fact that it's been underfunded for decades. When the problem is underfunding the solution is more funding.

This was on the news wasn't it?

The more people in the system, the more the system is going to have to pay. That is why Social Security is having difficulties. To many people in it and not enough people putting money into it.

The more people there are the more people there are to put money into the system. And with medical care the numbers stay in proportion as few people intentionally choose to be ill - unlike Social Security.

Economies of scale would (or should) make it more efficient and cheaper per person with more people.

Your the one that said the government couldn't force people to work for nothing. I simply pointed out that it could in certain circumstances.

And what about gray areas, like a government owned and operated hospital? Is it not conceivable that the government could require doctors to work there a certain number of days a year for free as a duty owed to the government?

Makes sense. There are "teaching hospitals" set up for the purpose of training new doctors. It makes sense that we have "recertification hospitals" set up to make sure that doctors are maintaining their skills which they must attend to keep their medical licenses.

After all, a lot of doctors stop studying after medical school. They rely on the drug companies to tell that what drugs work best for what, and they don't learn new procedures. "Recertification Hospitals" could do a lot of good beyond just state sponsored healthcare.

The more people in the system, the more the system is going to have to pay. That is why Social Security is having difficulties. To many people in it and not enough people putting money into it.

It's having difficulty because it isn't being maintained.

Ronald Reagan, a man so conservative that there's practically a conservative movement to deify him, raised the cap on taxable social security income several times. Dubya hasn't done it once. If we just did away with the cap social security would be funded well beyond the foreseeable future.

Even the comments that social security is in trouble are drastically overstated. Those calculations are of a dollar shortfall over the "infinite horizon." Meaning if you pay a penny more a year you have contributed an infinite amount of money to the social security system. Ultimately meaning the calculations of the Social Security Chicken Littles are complete bullshit.

The more people there are the more people there are to put money into the system. And with medical care the numbers stay in proportion as few people intentionally choose to be ill - unlike Social Security.

Economies of scale would (or should) make it more efficient and cheaper per person with more people.

One would think but this is the real world where it does not work that way. Considering that people will abuse the system thus draining it.

We've got universal healthcare in our country. Now the government's starting to sell it off, apparently to make it work better.
And people say the US is insane.

It's having difficulty because it isn't being maintained.

Ronald Reagan, a man so conservative that there's practically a conservative movement to deify him, raised the cap on taxable social security income several times. Dubya hasn't done it once. If we just did away with the cap social security would be funded well beyond the foreseeable future.

Oh that's nice. Raise taxes for social security which is about what you are proposing. That means, I'll have less money to spend and less money to save for the future. I can see the economy going down with that one considering how many people are retiring and how many people are actually putting money into Social Security. However, that is a different subject for a different thread.

One would think but this is the real world where it does not work that way. Considering that people will abuse the system thus draining it.

What are people going to do to abuse universal healthcare? Break their hand with a hammer to get a free operation?

As long as you restrict it to only provide basic healthcare - not viagra pills, boob jobs, tummy tucks, penis enlargements or sex changes - the scope for abuse becomes pretty low.

Social Security - sure - it's a system that BEGS to be abused, but very few people make themselves intentionally ill.

Actually, Medicare and Medicaid have much, much, much lower overhead and administrative costs than private insurers. So they aren't wasteful, they're comparatively quite efficient. HMOs typically spend around 9-10% of their revenues on administrative costs (that'd be any the bureaucracy involved, plus administrative salaries etc., IIRC), while Medicaid runs around 2%. Waaay more efficient. This is one area where the public sector kicks the shit out of the private sector in terms of efficiency.

EDIT: Source: http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/robinstest.html , though I got it from some other sources including the National Academies when I wrote a paper on this a while ago.
I don't see the link between lower administrative costs and higher administrative efficiency. All you've done is say that Medicare is spending less, not that they are performing the same functions for less. The article doesn't address fraud. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does that also mean that fraudulent claims don't represent a substantial portion of the Medicaid budget? In fact, couldn't the reduced administrative costs mean that Medicaid doesn't provide adequate service to their customers because they are understaffed?

Interesting how the failure of Medicaid, a government program, triggers calls for expanding government programs...
But those failing programs just need a few more dollars...That's what you hear every year. No one ever wants to address the real problems of failing programs because it's too easy to throw more money at them, then forget them for another budget cycle.

The real question to be answered on this topic, however, is why should we ruin something that works for over 250 million of us? Why don't we fix what's broke for the 40 million that can't hack it?

Actually not really. By raising taxes, you prevent people going out to spend money because they have less money to spend. Since they have less money to spend, less money is flowing around the country. With less money flowing around the country, tax revenues will be declining because people will have less money to give to the government.

Oh, the good ol' laffable Laffer curve. :rolleyes:

The logic of the Laffer curve only works under 2 circumstances.

1) The government just sits on the tax money. (which will never happen. It almost all gets spent, usually as a direct subsidy to business)

2) The tax rate algorithim forces people to earn less net income when their gross income increases. (this simply doesn't happen)

But those failing programs just need a few more dollars...That's what you hear every year. No one ever wants to address the real problems of failing programs because it's too easy to throw more money at them, then forget them for another budget cycle.

The real question to be answered on this topic, however, is why should we ruin something that works for over 250 million of us? Why don't we fix what's broke for the 40 million that can't hack it?

Because the 250 million of us are paying for $250,000 brain surgeries that fail to save a child's life than for an $80 tooth extraction.

Universal healthcare will save on our taxes and healthcare premiums. We'll SAVE money, not pay more money. Because we will be paying to provide preventative care for people who need it instead of emergency care for people who need it.

The bottom line is that we are already paying for universal healthcare.

The cost to run universal healthcare is a big thing that prevents it to pass. If we passed Universal Healthcare, taxes will be raised and that means less revenue for the government. Also, other programs that are necessary will be affected by it and money will go to that instead of where it needs to go like education and protecting the environment.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

If taxes are raised, total federal revenue will increase.


And we had a huge surplus in the Clinton administration. Thanks, Bush.

Because the 250 million of us are paying for $250,000 brain surgeries that fail to save a child's life than for an $80 tooth extraction.

Universal healthcare will save on our taxes and healthcare premiums. We'll SAVE money, not pay more money. Because we will be paying to provide preventative care for people who need it instead of emergency care for people who need it.

The bottom line is that we are already paying for universal healthcare.

Also, universal healthcare is more sensibly rationed (bias towards the fit and the young, rather than what happens in the US, where it is biased towards the old and the chronically ill). It also has less tolerance for hypochondriacs than the US system.

And less malpractice suit concerns.

We are already have a deficit as it is! Do you want to add to it?

Well, maybe if we didnt spend ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on frivolous expenditures, we wouldnt have a deficit.

Noooo, we have to cut taxes and then spend, so we can be forever indebted to China and the rest of the world.

That was my first thought reading this. She couldn't afford a $2 toothbrush and $3 worth of toothpaste, so we were expected to pay (at least) $80 to pull the kid's tooth? And now, we have to pay an astronomical amount more. It's a sad story, but why should everyone else (taxpayers) have to pay for her problems? We didn't make her too poor to afford this, much less did we take away the foresight to make a better decision,

here's the facts-a dental abscess can happen to anyone....I floss, I brush at least 5 times per day...my dentist takes good care of me but I still got an abscess and my dentist says sometimes it happens and there is no explanation for it....

unlike the kid in the article once I realized the numbness and swelling of my face and the associated headache were connected to my tooth I called my dentist and I had emergency treatment that day(strangely there was no tooth ache...it was a very close call according to the dentist it could have been fatal... cost me $900, 80% of which was covered by insurance...

so why does this burden lie on anyone but her?
firstly-because empathy and sharing with each other is what made us the supreme life form on the planet...apathy and greed seems to your priority's
2nd.-for the greedy and the apathetic..if the boy was treated in a public hospital taxpayers are on the hook for $250,000 instead of $80.....

One would think but this is the real world where it does not work that way. Considering that people will abuse the system thus draining it.

another urban myth....do you believe people are scheming ways to be sick so they collect free health care.....in all countries even those with universal health care abuse of the system isn't a problem, the problem is getting people to the doctor before they get really sick...it's less inexpensive to treat illness in the early stages than leaving it until they need to hospitalized...

Noooo, we have to cut taxes and then spend, so we can be forever indebted to China and the rest of the world.

That was mortgage fraud, not the government.

Americans have no one but themselves to blame. They are too stupid to understand what is going on.

Because the 250 million of us are paying for $250,000 brain surgeries that fail to save a child's life than for an $80 tooth extraction.

Universal healthcare will save on our taxes and healthcare premiums. We'll SAVE money, not pay more money. Because we will be paying to provide preventative care for people who need it instead of emergency care for people who need it.

The bottom line is that we are already paying for universal healthcare.

Yes and it works for 80% of us. Let's not screw that up. I figure that there is a way to make sure the last 20% can get decent PM without rationing care to the rest of us who can pay.

Americans have no one but themselves to blame. They are too stupid to understand what is going on.

All they care about is liquid money for themselves.

Yes and it works for 80% of us. Let's not screw that up. I figure that there is a way to make sure the last 20% can get decent PM without rationing care to the rest of us who can pay.

I can't speak for other countries but generally the way Universal care works here is no one is rationed, extra insurance just gets you some nice perks(private room vs shared)......and it cost less than private care so where's the down side?

and with private insurance and I hope you don't find out the hard way, you can run out of insurance.... if you think $2 million is adequate coverage what happens if you need extensive cancer treatment and that 2 mill is used up, then what?.....and once you're insurance coverage is depleted what insurance company will insure someone who is already sick?....insurance company's do not give a fuck about your health, they are in the business to make money, if they can avoid paying they will do so at your expense....

Yes and it works for 80% of us. Let's not screw that up. I figure that there is a way to make sure the last 20% can get decent PM without rationing care to the rest of us who can pay.

We're already paying for the 20%. The system we have, and the money we pay is already paying for them. But with open access to more resources, the amount WE pay will drop. Do you really think our health care isn't already rationed by our HMOs?

All they care about is liquid money for themselves.

The economy never recovered from the mess that greenspan and clinton made in the nineties.

The economy never recovered from the mess that greenspan and clinton made in the nineties.

You mean that whole balanced budget mess? Yeah, that was a fiasco. :rolleyes:

We're already paying for the 20%. The system we have, and the money we pay is already paying for them. But with open access to more resources, the amount WE pay will drop. Do you really think our health care isn't already rationed by our HMOs?

I agree that we are already paying for the 20%. That won't change because what we pay in health plan premiums will just be shifted to increased taxes. I don't see any net savings on health care. I do disagree that our care is rationed. I can take money from my MSA and spend it wherever and whenever I want. I don't belong to an HMO and I never will. When the day comes that I can't spend MY money in the WAY that I want, then care will be rationed.

Last, we can certainly clean up the way Medicaid/Medicare operates. That's where the focus should be -- making sure that the 20% or so of Americans that need assistance, get it in an efficient manner. Maybe the answer is giving them vouchers, maybe it's not. But whenever the government steps in and decides what the payment schedule will be, regardless of what the prevailing charges are in an area, there will always be doctors and hospitals that decline participation because they'll lose money.

Sure, universal health care is a fantastic idea if you enjoy waiting two years for an MRI and receiving sub-par care. Then there's the added bonus of the millions of taxpayer dollars that are stolen from the individuals who have rightfully earned them. It's also great if you're completely amoral and have no problem endorsing slavery and coercion in the form of government-mandated theft. Forcing people to work at prices determined without their consent isn't really my bag.

"Health care" isn't some objective idea that exists independently of the individuals who offer it - it isn't a right. It exists when individuals decide to acquire the skills necessary to solve problems with the human body. Were money their only motivation, and it isn't, I'd not have a problem with that. If you believe that individuals have the right to free health care, you believe that individuals have the right to force others to work for them for free. Not only that, but it enslaves the taxpayers who are forced to engage in charity for the benefit of strangers. If I were to fall, would it be my right to receive help for free? If so, it is the duty of the man who helps me to do so, and he is therefore my slave. Socialists of all parties seem to neglect the fact that services are offered by individuals and not by theoretical entities.

Furthermore, I laugh at the idea that desiring payment for services is reprehensible or despicable.

Oh come on. This isn't giant evil corporations strangling a kid to death. It's a case of single mother (implying that she either had children with someone who skipped on her, which is bad judgement on her part, or her husband died, in which case I'm sorry, but that's fate) not teaching her kids to take basic care of their teeth (if the kid brushed and flossed, didn't eat sugary crap, etc. I'd bet he'd still be alive), and then getting fired from yet another job.

The mother is more to blame than the government.

Oh come on. This isn't giant evil corporations strangling a kid to death. It's a case of single mother (implying that she either had children with someone who skipped on her, which is bad judgement on her part, or her husband died, in which case I'm sorry, but that's fate) not teaching her kids to take basic care of their teeth (if the kid brushed and flossed, didn't eat sugary crap, etc. I'd bet he'd still be alive), and then getting fired from yet another job.

The mother is more to blame than the government.

do you bother to read before you post? I'll repeat it again.... anyone can get a tooth abscess, it happens...I had a perfectly healthy tooth die and become abscessed....I brush and floss and haven't had a cavity in 20 yrs....

I support a hybrid between the two, with government providing free or greatly reduced coverage for those who can't afford it while the market handles the actual system and provides insurance to those who don't qualify for government insurance.

HERE HERE!

I support a hybrid between the two, with government providing free or greatly reduced coverage for those who can't afford it while the market handles the actual system and provides insurance to those who don't qualify for government insurance.
Wouldn't that be exactly what we have now, provided the government got out of the market side?