or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs." -Romney
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care...

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 

How does Israel do it?  The Affordable Care Act on Steroids.  Whoops.  Oh Romney, thank you for coming out and explaining that the real reason you don't like "Obamacare" is that it has too little government intervention rather than too much.  Or he just doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about and will be anything for anyone he speaks to like the political chameleon he is.

 

 

 

Quote:
 When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.
 
-Mitt Romney

 

Israel has socialized medicine.  That's how they do it.  Dumbass.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How does Israel do it?  The Affordable Care Act on Steroids.  Whoops.  Oh Romney, thank you for coming out and explaining that the real reason you don't like "Obamacare" is that it has too little government intervention rather than too much.  Or he just doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about and will be anything for anyone he speaks to like the political chameleon he is.

 

 

 

Quote:
 When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.
 
-Mitt Romney

 

Israel has socialized medicine.  That's how they do it.  Dumbass.

Really!lol.gif This is a prime example of what Romney's all about. Say one thing but if it benefits him say the opposite later.


Edited by jimmac - 7/30/12 at 2:53pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How does Israel do it?  The Affordable Care Act on Steroids.  Whoops.  Oh Romney, thank you for coming out and explaining that the real reason you don't like "Obamacare" is that it has too little government intervention rather than too much.  Or he just doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about and will be anything for anyone he speaks to like the political chameleon he is.

 

 

 

 

Israel has socialized medicine.  That's how they do it.  Dumbass.

 

You're calling out the man who brought about Romneycare? Really?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

You're calling out the man who brought about Romneycare? Really?

He is running on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  So, yes, I am.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

He is running on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  So, yes, I am.

 

What candidates run on and what they actually do are very, very different. Obama is a prime example of that.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

He is running on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  So, yes, I am.

 

The "Affordable Care Act" (a major misnomer, because it does nothing to contain costs) is very different from the program Romney signed in Mass.  The ACA is a nightmare through and through.  Anyone who understands what it will actually do (and cost) favors its repeal.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 31

This is the thing about the very rich. In the US people like Romney do get the best healthcare in the world. But businesses struggle to keep up with the costs. It's effectively a tax. People like Romney know full well that Romneycare or Obamacare (the same just on a national level and without the tax increases on capital gains etc) reduces costs for businesses (not always so much on small one's in all respects, but anyway) so of course, he and many others want their businesses to become more competitive. You reduce costs, let the government contribute more, and everyone's happy.

 

Just like Obama care though, it creates a system that caters to the many at the expense of the few. A system where costs are much less, but gone is the attention that attracted business to those that offered it previously.

 

For the average punter with insurance, expect a degraded service. One where no longer it's a safeguard, a way to ensure your best health, but one where if you cost less at that stage, you'll be someone's else's problem later, so that particular department is fine.

 

Now, before you all think Iv'e totally reversed my thinking on healthcare, I haven't. I simply believe that healthcare should mean healthcare, and under nationalised healthcare you will never ever get the same quality that top grade private healthcare has been eager to provide in the US. The US system left too many people out, far too many, but at it's best, it is undoubtedly the best care, and for those very fortunate enough to be able to afford it, it prolonged their lives and made a big difference to their health.

 

The only way to have a proper healthcare system is to spend a lot of money on it. Cutting admin etc is a good start, but only if all the stages of healthcare are well funded. Low costs for taxes and businesses is not a good starting point.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #8 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

The "Affordable Care Act" (a major misnomer, because it does nothing to contain costs) is very different from the program Romney signed in Mass.  The ACA is a nightmare through and through.  Anyone who understands what it will actually do (and cost) favors its repeal.  

So he wants to implement Israel's system of socialized medicine?  Cool.  Maybe I should vote for Romney.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 31

Hands:

 

 

 

Quote:

This is the thing about the very rich. In the US people like Romney do get the best healthcare in the world. But businesses struggle to keep up with the costs. It's effectively a tax. People like Romney know full well that Romneycare or Obamacare (the same just on a national level and without the tax increases on capital gains etc) reduces costs for businesses (not always so much on small one's in all respects, but anyway) so of course, he and many others want their businesses to become more competitive. You reduce costs, let the government contribute more, and everyone's happy.

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Obamacare reduces costs...in fact, the evidence points to it dramatically increasing costs for all.  Romneycare's goal was not to reduce costs as much as it was to cover the uninsured.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Just like Obama care though, it creates a system that caters to the many at the expense of the few. A system where costs are much less, but gone is the attention that attracted business to those that offered it previously.

 

Romneycare expanded health insurance to many uninsured persons.  I don't know what your second sentence means.  

 

 

 

Quote:
For the average punter with insurance, expect a degraded service. One where no longer it's a safeguard, a way to ensure your best health, but one where if you cost less at that stage, you'll be someone's else's problem later, so that particular department is fine.

 

Assume you got autocorrected into "punter" when you meant "person."  I agree with the bolded statement.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Now, before you all think Iv'e totally reversed my thinking on healthcare, I haven't. I simply believe that healthcare should mean healthcare, and under nationalised healthcare you will never ever get the same quality that top grade private healthcare has been eager to provide in the US. The US system left too many people out, far too many, but at it's best, it is undoubtedly the best care, and for those very fortunate enough to be able to afford it, it prolonged their lives and made a big difference to their health.

 

The only way to have a proper healthcare system is to spend a lot of money on it. Cutting admin etc is a good start, but only if all the stages of healthcare are well funded. Low costs for taxes and businesses is not a good starting point.

 

Funny enough...you've hit the nail on the head:  We don't have a healthcare problem.  We have a health insurance problem.   We should work to get more people covered as its the right thing to do.  But we cannot guarantee equally superb care for all regardless of means.  What we can do is get the vast majority of people access to at least "basic" healthcare.  That, in my opinion, is where our "rights" to healthcare end and privilege begins.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 31
Thread Starter 
SDW, your candidate just praised universal healthcare with a nationwide individual mandate--something you and your party (and your candidate) have denounced (well, recently when Democrats proposed it anyway). Stop dodging the issue. How do you reconcile Romney's statement about Israel's healthcare with his position on American healthcare?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 31

He cannot.
 

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, your candidate just praised universal healthcare with a nationwide individual mandate--something you and your party (and your candidate) have denounced (well, recently when Democrats proposed it anyway). Stop dodging the issue. How do you reconcile Romney's statement about Israel's healthcare with his position on American healthcare?

 

The 10 point gap isn't because of private medicine. It is because our federal and many state governments are completely ineffective. It is liberals like yourself who believe government can do no wrong that discredit government by allowing it to be ineffective. You should instead be the most vocal and fiercest critic of bad government. Since government is akin to religion for leftists, they dare not speak evil of their church nor of their messiah, Obama.

 

If American government providing health care is so cost effective, why is Medicare bankrupt?


Edited by trumptman - 7/31/12 at 5:43am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, your candidate just praised universal healthcare with a nationwide individual mandate--something you and your party (and your candidate) have denounced (well, recently when Democrats proposed it anyway). Stop dodging the issue. How do you reconcile Romney's statement about Israel's healthcare with his position on American healthcare?

 

LOL.  Right, because what he was really praising was the parts he claims to oppose.  He wasn't addressing their overall care or their health as a nation.  He wasn't praising the fact that medical insurance doesn't cover what our does.  Right, BR?  Right?  lol.gif   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 31

Anybody who has actually been to Israel and understands how they eat will understand the foolishness of BR's comparison here.

 

Health care is much easier to provide when the whole nation isn't buying dinner at McDonald's and Burger King.

 

To add to SDW, America does not have a health care problem. It has a health insurance and an obesity problem.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

To add to SDW, America does not have a health care problem. It has a health insurance and an obesity problem.

 

And that problem could be greatly improved if:

 

  1. the federal government used the power it is given in the Commerce Clause to allow sale of insurance across state lines. It has not problem waving that hammer around for things completely unrelated to actual commerce, but fails to do so in this case.
  2. Eliminate the tax advantage of employer-provided plans.

 

There's more for sure, but these two things would be huge and likely lead to the following:

 

  1. Much more competition among insurance companies (across state lines).
  2. People stop getting their heath insurance from employers and, instead, but it directly and keep it with them regardless of employer/employment.

 

I think you may also need to eliminate various coverage mandates and price controls on insurance as well. But this might be achieved in practice by doing #1.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

LOL.  Right, because what he was really praising was the parts he claims to oppose.  He wasn't addressing their overall care or their health as a nation.  He wasn't praising the fact that medical insurance doesn't cover what our does.  Right, BR?  Right?  lol.gif   

Well, he talks about how fantastic Israeli healthcare is in that they spend so little of their GDP and cover so many people.  Except, the reason isn't just the ancedotally good overall eating habits that MJ is attempting to use to explain the entire difference.  Here, check out what Israel's universal healthcare includes:

 

 

 

Quote:

Israel has maintained a system of socialized health care since its establishment in 1948, although the National Health Insurance law was passed only on January 1, 1995. [2] The state is responsible for providing health services to all residents of the country, who can register with one of the four health service funds. To be eligible, a citizen must pay a health insurance tax. Coverage includes medical diagnosis and treatment, preventive medicine, hospitalization (general, maternity, psychiatric and chronic), surgery and transplants, preventive dental care for children, first aid and transportation to a hospital or clinic, medical services at the workplace, treatment for drug abuse and alcoholism, medical equipment and appliances, obstetrics and fertility treatment, medication, treatment of chronic diseases and paramedical services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy.[3]

[edit]Rights of the Insured under the National Health Insurance Law

  • Every Israeli citizen is entitled to health care services under the National Health Insurance Law.
  • Every resident has a right to register as a member of an HMO of his/her choice, free of any preconditions or limitations stemming from his/her age or the state of his/her health.
  • Every resident has a right to receive, via the HMO of which she or he is a member, all of the services included in the medical services basket, subject to medical discretion, and at a reasonable quality level, within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable distance from his/her home.
  • Each member has a right to receive the health services while preserving the member’s dignity, privacy and medical confidentiality.
  • Every Israeli resident has the right to transfer from one HMO to another.
  • Each member has a right to select the service providers, such as doctors, caregivers, therapists, hospitals and institutes, from within a list of service providers who have entered into an agreement with the HMO to which the member belongs, and within the arrangements in place for the selection of the service providers, and which the HMO publishes from time to time.
  • Each member has a right to know which hospitals and institutes, and other service providers, are included in the agreement with the HMO, and what are the selection processes at the HMO.
  • Each member has a right to see and to receive a copy of the HMO regulations.
  • Each resident has a right to receive from the HMO complete information concerning the payment arrangements in place in the HMO for health services as well as the HMO’s plans offered for additional health services (CIP).
  • Each member has a right to complain with the Public Inquiries commissioner at the medical institute that treated the member, to the person in charge of investigating member complaints at the HMO of which s/he is a member, or to the complaints commissioner for the national health insurance law in the Ministry of Health.
  • Each member has a right to file suit at the district labor court.[4]

Choose your own doctor and get preventative healthcare regardless of preexisting conditions.  But really, how are costs so low?  Here's how:

 

 

 

Quote:
Based on tax collections for the program, the government—and the government alone—decides how much it will pay to the four health maintenance organizations based on the age and health of their beneficiaries. If the amount the government elects to pay is insufficient to cover the HMO’s costs—tough. It’s up to the HMO to find a way to avoid dipping into the red as they are prohibited by law from withholding or diminishing the quality of care made available to their customers.

 

 

Wow.  That'll motivate the hell out of a company to eliminate waste.

 

In praising Israeli healthcare, Romney must live with the consequences: they are everything he doesn't want.  SDW, if you can't even see that, well...this would top your continued WMD & Iraq defense.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, he talks about how fantastic Israeli healthcare is in that they spend so little of their GDP and cover so many people.  Except, the reason isn't just the ancedotally good overall eating habits that MJ is attempting to use to explain the entire difference.  Here, check out what Israel's universal healthcare includes:

 

 

 

Choose your own doctor and get preventative healthcare regardless of preexisting conditions.  But really, how are costs so low?  Here's how:

 

 

 

 

Wow.  That'll motivate the hell out of a company to eliminate waste.

 

In praising Israeli healthcare, Romney must live with the consequences: they are everything he doesn't want.  SDW, if you can't even see that, well...this would top your continued WMD & Iraq defense.

 

 

Can you show me where he praises all of the above, and where these provisions differ from his stated position?  Has he come out against pre-existing condition language?  Picking your insurance company?  Privacy?  Dignity?  Complaining to the insurance commissioner in your state?  Really, I understand that you wish to make Romney look bad on every issue.  I realize your goal to to ultimately make it seem that Romney actually supports the disaster that is Obamacare.  But your efforts are transparent, pathetic and laughable.  You've been defending the indefensible (Obama) now for months.  I just wonder how long it will take you to realize it.  And I wonder how long it will take others to realize that much of your stance against Romney is nothing but thinly veiled anti-religious bigotry.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 31
Thread Starter 

The implication of praising Israeli Healthcare is tacit approval of its healthcare system.  Try as you might, you won't weasel your way out of this one.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The implication of praising Israeli Healthcare is tacit approval of its healthcare system.  Try as you might, you won't weasel your way out of this one.  

 

Implication.  Tacit approval.  

 

Seriously?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The implication of praising Israeli Healthcare is tacit approval of its healthcare system.  Try as you might, you won't weasel your way out of this one.  

 

If Romney approves of government-run healthcare, why oppose him?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

  And I wonder how long it will take others to realize that much of your stance against Romney is nothing but thinly veiled anti-religious bigotry.  

 

You're digging your own grave here with these kind of attacks. They make you look unbalanced.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hands:

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Obamacare reduces costs...in fact, the evidence points to it dramatically increasing costs for all.  Romneycare's goal was not to reduce costs as much as it was to cover the uninsured.  

 

 

 

 

Romneycare expanded health insurance to many uninsured persons.  I don't know what your second sentence means.  

 

 

 

 

Assume you got autocorrected into "punter" when you meant "person."  I agree with the bolded statement.  

 

 

 

 

Funny enough...you've hit the nail on the head:  We don't have a healthcare problem.  We have a health insurance problem.   We should work to get more people covered as its the right thing to do.  But we cannot guarantee equally superb care for all regardless of means.  What we can do is get the vast majority of people access to at least "basic" healthcare.  That, in my opinion, is where our "rights" to healthcare end and privilege begins.  

The sentence you didn't understand was me saying that medical businesses provide services and strive to offer the best products they can, because there's a willing market to pay for that kind of quality. I realise that the sentence wasn't necessarily easy to fathom, but it stated my point. This will still exist, but it's under threat, as costs are squeezed, which is true for government run healthcare far more than under the US system. There are pro's and cons as ever, but the Americans have thrived in this marketplace, even though that's been a mixed blessings for many Americans, including businesses who struggle with the high costs.

 

 

Obamacare or whatever one calls it reduces the costs of healthcare for most people, to say otherwise is a joke. Yes insurance companies increase costs (which there are now limits on) to cover the more extensive requirements they are forced to cover, but nonetheless, what people get in return for their money is greater, and that's why MJ's plans are so messed up. Healthcare should mean a wholesome meal not a happy meal at McDonalds if you catch my drift.

 

Romneycare has worked extremely well. I am genuinely appalled at Romney's overseas trip and now despise the man, but he has proved he's far removed from the Tea Party'esque fools who are no so prevalent in his party.

 

No I meant punter. Perhaps not the best English, but it's what I meant to write. 

 

I am worried about the quality of service. Unless a country is willing to spend money on it's healthcare there will be falls in quality. Healthcare for roughly the same quality in the UK, does cost much less than the US, but the problem is that it's not funded enough. Just because we can get costs much lower under the system here, shouldn't mean we fall back on quality. The best US healthcare is thorough and timely, that's what it should be everywhere, but too often there's not the money spent and so one's left with a diminished service. That's wrong, and the people need to keep the pressure on governments that run the healthcare to properly fund it.

 

Basic healthcare to the poor and top notch to the rich? I find that appalling. What we need to strive for is a high quality of healthcare for all. The idea that those who work so hard or are simply left out for many reasons of a good income, should only expect basic healthcare is why I find so many right of centre Republicans repugnant.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 7/31/12 at 4:12pm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The sentence you didn't understand was me saying that medical businesses provide services and strive to offer the best products they can, because there's a willing market to pay for that kind of quality.

 

Which is why it should be totally privatized.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Obamacare or whatever one calls it reduces the costs of healthcare for most people, to say otherwise is a joke.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, and this is only the first example in this post.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yes insurance companies increase costs (which there are now limits on) to cover the more extensive requirements they are forced to cover, but nonetheless, what people get in return for their money is greater, and that's why MJ's plans are so messed up.

 

What the heck are you talking about?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Romneycare has worked extremely well.

 

And example number two that shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Basic healthcare to the poor and top notch to the rich? I find that appalling. What we need to strive for is a high quality of healthcare for all.

 

Why? Is it because you equate "basic" with "poor quality"? Why would you do that? Perhaps it is because of your biases?

 

Let's try that sentence with other things:

 

"Basic housing to the poor and top notch to the rich? I find that appalling."

 

 

"Basic cars to the poor and top notch to the rich? I find that appalling."

 

"Basic cell phones to the poor and top notch to the rich? I find that appalling."

 

Etc.

 

Fact of the matter is, a completely privatized health care and health insurance industry would result in better products, services, quality, choices, prices for everyone including and especially the poor. To say otherwise is a joke (and demonstrates a profound level of ignorance or denial.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Anybody who has actually been to Israel and understands how they eat will understand the foolishness of BR's comparison here.

 

Health care is much easier to provide when the whole nation isn't buying dinner at McDonald's and Burger King.

 

To add to SDW, America does not have a health care problem. It has a health insurance and an obesity problem.

 

I'm going to absolutely say this is true and I'll even go a step further and declare that the government could, in fact deliver a health care plan that would be suitable for 80% of the populace at or perhaps even below what we spend now if the right conditions were initially set up.

 

Government can do a good job with a number of things. Most of us are happy with our police, our fire departments and in the majority of cases, our public schools. Heck even though they are completely bankrupt, most people obviously support Social Security and Medicare.

 

The problem comes down two-fold. First what happens when a person harms or takes advantage of the system? Second, what happens when they system is selectively overwhelmed by lifestyle choices or environmental factors?

 

Every example I see given of a system that is really working has the following common traits, the country is small, the country has a common culture, the country has little ethnic and race diversity.

 

We see what happens when those same systems I named above, police, fire and schools are overwhelmed by demands. They fail badly and as a society we don't appear to have the tools to judge and correct the problem. How are they corrected in the smaller homogenous countries? It's simple, they judge, sometimes quite harshly by U.S. standards and deny certain opportunities or treatments.

 

Many of these smaller countries, the articles and papers written about them basically are snapshots and they say all is well now but note changing demographic with regard to age and ethnicity and rising costs that will need to be quickly addressed at some point in the future. So the point could be that even if they work for now, they won't in the future.

 

So how can our country manage the costs of the entire nation when it can't do so for the portions it already controls? If it won't deny grandma a liver transplant at half a million dollars that gives her two more weeks, how can we trust them with a larger piece of the puzzle?

 

Shouldn't those who want the government to manage this demand the government get their own house in order with regard to Medicare? If they can't then why give them more?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 31
"1. We spend the most. We spend more than any other country in the world. In 2005, our per capita -- so, per person -- spending was $6,697. The next highest in the study was Canada, at $3,326. And remember -- that's "mean" spending, so it's the amount we spend divided by our population. But unlike in Canada, about 16 percent of our population doesn't have insurance, and so often can't use the system. These facts should set the stage for all numbers that come after: Every time you see a data point in which were dead last, or not leading the pack, remember that we spend twice as much as any of our competitors.

2. We don't pay doctors according to the quality of their care. One of the first questions is "percent of primary care practices with financial incentives for quality" -- in other words, how many doctors are paid, in part, according to the quality of the care they deliver. In the United Kingdom, the number is 95 percent. In Australia, it's 72 percent. The U.S. scores lower than anyone else, at 30 percent. Similarly, electronic medical records -- which both increase the quality of care and lower its cost -- have 89 percent penetration in the U.K., 79 percent in Australia, 98 percent in the Netherlands, and 28 percent in America. On both these metrics, we perform miserably.

3. Our wait times are low because many of us aren't getting care at all. It's true, Americans do have short waits for non-elective surgeries. Only 4 percent of us wait more than six months. That's more than in Germany and the Netherlands, but considerably less than the Canadians (14 percent) or the Britons (15 percent). But our high performance on the waiting times only account for individuals who get the care they need. Our advantage dissipates when you see the next question, which asks how many patients skip care due to cost. And here, America is far worse than anywhere else.
In just the past year, a full 25 percent of us didn't visit the doctor when sick because we couldn't afford it. Twenty-three percent skipped a test, treatment, or follow-up recommended by a doctor. Another 23 percent didn't fill a prescription. No other country is even close to this sort of income-based rationing. In Canada, only 4 percent skipped a doctor's visit, and only 5 percent skipped care. In the U.K., those numbers are 2 percent and 3 percent. Few of our countrymen are waiting for the care they need, that much is true. But that doesn't mean they're getting it quickly. Rather, about a quarter of us aren't getting it at all.

Indeed, 19 percent of Americans were unable, or had serious problems, paying medical bills in the last year. Comparatively, no other country was even in the double digits. This is part of why we perform well on the waiting-times metric. In other countries, the disadvantaged wait longer for their care, and so show up in the data tracking wait times. In our country, they disappear from that measure, because they never get the care at all. You don't wait for what you're not receiving. So their wait times show up as "zero," when they should really be something akin to infinite. And would you prefer to wait four months for your surgery, or never get it at all?

4. Most of us don't have a regular physician. One might expect, given what we pay, that our care would at least be more central and convenient. But it's not so. Of everyone surveyed, Americans were the least likely to report a doctor or general practitioner they routinely saw. As a result. Americans are the most likely to say their doctor doesn't know important information about their medical history, which has obvious implications for care quality, medical errors, etc.

5. Our care isn't particularly convenient. Nor is medical service more convenient for Americans to access. On such questions as whether your doctor has early morning hours, evening availability, or weekend slots, we're not trailing the pack, but we're not in the lead, either. On evening hours, for instance, we lag behind Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand. On same day appointments, Only 30 percent of Americans report that they can access a doctor on the very day they need one, as opposed to 41 percent of Britons and 55 percent of Germans. And a full 67 percent of Americans -- more than in any other country -- say it's difficult to get care on nights, weekends, or holidays with resorting to the emergency room, where care is costlier and, if your injury is not grievous, less efficient.

6. Our doctors don't listen to us. But maybe the amount we're paying comes in customer service -- maybe our doctors spend more time with us, are more reassuring, are more attentive to our cases. After all, we basically like the care we get. Our overall self-evaluation of the treatment we receive is solidly in the middle of the pack, with 70 percent expressing satisfaction -- which means we're less satisfied than the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, but 5 percent above the Britons, and well above the Germans or Dutch. But when you ask for specifics, we do a bit worse.
Americans are the least likely to report that their doctors explain things in ways they understand (though the spread on this question is rather small) or say doctors spend enough time with them (56 percent of us say they do, as compared to 70 percent of Germans). We're the most likely to report that test results or medical records were unavailable during our scheduled appointments and, along with the Germans, the most likely to say that our doctors ordered tests that we'd already had done. On the bright side, 78 percent of us say our regular doctor was "informed and up-to-date" about follow-up care after a hospital visit.

7. We have high rates of chronic conditions. Aside from the surprisingly unhealthy Australians, Americans have the highest rate of chronic disease. And this isn't only a comparative problem; our high rates of chronic disease are a massive cost-driver, attributable, according to the research of Ken Thorpe, for about 2/3rds the rise in health spending over the past few decades.

8. … But we're not treating them properly. So given the high prevalence of such diseases, and the pressures they exert on our system, you'd hope our system had evolved so as to treat these diseases more effectively.
Not so. One of the big issues with chronic disease is coordination of care. Illnesses like diabetes and kidney failure have so many manifestations, and require so much maintenance, that it's critical for care providers to have a full picture of what treatments are being received, what the patient's medical history is, what therapies they will and will not follow, etc. And for that reason, it's critical for the patients to have a single medical home – a regular care center where their case is understood, tracked, and treated. Sadly, we're tied with the Canadians for the lowest percentage reporting a single "medical home."

Worse,we're far and away the likeliest to report spending more than $500 out-of-pocket on prescription drugs annually. That's a problem, as higher out-of-pocket costs mean more of us going without prescriptions, which means less maintenance of conditions and, thus, more cost when our chronic illnesses balloon into catastrophic health events. Indeed, 42 percent of Americans with chronic conditions -- the exact same percentage who report paying more than $500 for drugs -- report skipping care, drug doses, or doctor's appointments due to cost. That's cheaper for them in the short-term, as they can spend some of the money on food or rent. It's more expensive for us, however, as we pick up the huge bill when they end up in the hospital in full cardiac arrest.

9. We're frequent victims of medical, medication, and lab errors. Along with Australians, Americans are the most likely to report a medical, medication, or lab error, with 20 percent saying they've experienced one of the above over the past year. For those of us with chronic diseases, the rates are even higher. There are many reasons for this, ranging from our low adoption rate of electronic medical records to our splintered care system. But the effects are bad for our health and, needless to say, bad for our insurance rates. Conservatives make a huge deal out of medical malpractice claims, but studies show that our high rate of lawsuits is due to our high rate of medical error. The crisis isn't just in the courtrooms, it's on the operating tables.

10. Most of us are dissatisfied with our current system. In health polling, happiness with the system is generally measured through a three-answer question: Does your system merely need minor changes, as it works pretty well? Does it need fundamental changes? Or does it need to be rebuilt? Of all the countries surveyed -- including the supposedly dystopic U.K. and Canada -- Americans are the least likely to report relative satisfaction, and the most likely to call for a fundamental rebuilding. Only 16 percent of us are happy. In Canada and the U.K., that number is 26 percent. In the Netherlands, it's 42 percent. Meanwhile, 34 percent of Americas want to completely rebuild. Only 12 percent of Canadians say the same, and only 15 percent of U.K. residents want a new system. So paying more than twice as much as anyone else, we have the lowest satisfaction with our health care system. Lower than the countries with waiting lines. Lower than Germany, and Australia, and New Zealand.
And perhaps this shouldn't be a surprise. Is it any wonder that Americans who have to forgo care are less satisfied than Canadians who simply have to wait for elective surgeries? That our shorter doctor visits, more impersonal caregivers, higher rates of medical errors, and inability to find primary care after 6 P.M. have left us frustrated? And that our sky-high costs have, finally, left us aching for change."
~ http://prospect.org/article/ten-reasons-why-american-health-care-so-bad
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #26 of 31

Hands: 

 

 


 

Quote:

Obamacare or whatever one calls it reduces the costs of healthcare for most people, to say otherwise is a joke.

 

Until you realize that all evidence points to the contrary and that you have NO supporting for this statement, we can't go further.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hands: 

 

 


 

Quote:

Obamacare or whatever one calls it reduces the costs of healthcare for most people, to say otherwise is a joke.

 

Until you realize that all evidence points to the contrary and that you have NO supporting for this statement, we can't go further.   

And what evidence wouild that be?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And what evidence wouild that be?

 

Uh, the fact that healthcare costs are up?  

 

Long-term care premiums.  

 

Highmark raises rates 9.5% 

 

Just two quick examples.  Logically, how do you expect exploding demand for a product to drive prices down?  Obamacare requies everyone to buy health insurance.  It also provides subsidies for people that "can't afford" it, and bars insurers from excluding anyone with a pre-existing condition...or even charging them more in most cases. HHS now requires birth control to be provided FREE of any co=pay.  What do you think insurance companies are going to do...sit back and take all of this?  Of course not.  They will raise rates.  They will get into other businesses.  And none of this even gets into Medicare and Medicaid patients, who many doctors are now refusing to take as new patients (Obamacare also cuts Medicare by $700 billion...who do you think will bear that cost?).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 31
Thread Starter 

The Ryan plan keeps those same cuts and asks for more.  Is Romney not running on the Ryan plan that he previously endorsed?  Here's five instances in which Romney endorsed the Ryan plan.  Oh, also, here's Romney saying he would pay no taxes under the Ryan plan.  Well, he exaggerated a bit.  It would have been 0.82% last year.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The Ryan plan keeps those same cuts and asks for more.  Is Romney not running on the Ryan plan that he previously endorsed?  Here's five instances in which Romney endorsed the Ryan plan.  Oh, also, here's Romney saying he would pay no taxes under the Ryan plan.  Well, he exaggerated a bit.  It would have been 0.82% last year.

Where does this pity for the rich in the US come from? I haven't seen it to anything like the same degree as we're seeing in the US anywhere else.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #31 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The Ryan plan keeps those same cuts and asks for more.  Is Romney not running on the Ryan plan that he previously endorsed?  Here's five instances in which Romney endorsed the Ryan plan.  Oh, also, here's Romney saying he would pay no taxes under the Ryan plan.  Well, he exaggerated a bit.  It would have been 0.82% last year.

 

 

Romney is not running on the Ryan plan.  That is false.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Where does this pity for the rich in the US come from? I haven't seen it to anything like the same degree as we're seeing in the US anywhere else.

 

There is no pity for the rich.  The difference is that many of us lack antipathy towards the rich.  The rich pay the taxes.  The rich produce and consume goods and services.  The rich provide jobs.  More rich people is good for the country, and always has been.  The rich should pay more than the poor or middle class, and even in our disastrous tax code they usually do.  The issue here, Hands, is that your goal is to use taxation to address inequality as opposed to funding the essential functions of government.  That's why you and your Democrat Masters argue for more taxes on the rich.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs." -Romney