The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality

HuffPo knows a good example when they see one as studies relating to health have shown.

"Dads have the power to make the whole family healthy, according to a new study.

Researchers at the University of Newcastle have found that kids copy their fathers diets and exercise regimes.

They will conduct the world-first study - Healthy Dads, Healthy Kids - funded by the Hunter Medical Research Institute.

The six-month study has shown that kids mimic their fathers over their mothers when it comes to healthy eating and exercise.

Associate Professor Philip Morgan, who heads the new program, saw surprising results in a previous trial involving 165 overweight children.

He found kids who lost the most weight had fathers who were engaged in the new eating and exercise plan.

In another trial, involving 65 men in an online weight loss program, he found that the children of men involved - and even their wives - also shed kilos."
~ http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/..._10085591.html

Obama is setting a good example (except for the smoking, has he quit?). This from HuffPo -
"The President of the United States is an important job, but nothing comes close to being a dad. When Barack Obama isn't meeting with politicians or courting the press, or slipping away for the occasional date night, he's hanging out with his daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, 8. To celebrate this Father's Day, we've assembled an album of Obama's cutest dad moments. From rollerskating to vacationing in Hawaii to running after Bo, this looks like one family we'd like to be adopted into."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_217097.html

Healthcare is worth paying for. The problem is it's bankrupting American's and leaving lots of people sick in the US.

Here's some truly shocking figures published by the BBC-

"Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed nation, according to a report from several US charities.

More US babies die in their first year than in most other rich countries.
If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life."
~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

"75 million American adults representing 42 percent of people under 65 had either no insurance or inadequate insurance coverage in 2007.
All other major industrialized nations provide some form of health coverage for all their citizens. Most of these systems offer a broad range of benefits at no cost to the patients. In comparison, the U.S. spends more than twice as much per person as these other nations but ranks near the bottom in quality and access to care.

The World Health Organization last ranked health system performance in 2000 using major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Among its 191 member nations, the U.S. ranked 37. How could we be left so far behind, and why has this problem been allowed to persist?"
~ http://www.citizen.org/prezview/articles.cfm?ID=18509

Obama needs to get things moving. Stir things up a bit. It's worth it.

More stupidity-

"Almost half of all private sector workers, 57 million, do not have a single paid sick day.

We looked at 22 affluent countries -- the 22 that are the top 22 ranked in terms of the human development index -- except for the United States, every single other one has some form of paid sick days or paid sick leave and the majority have both,"
"presenteeism" -- when sick workers show up for work instead of staying home -- costs the national economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity, or $225 per employee per year."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_204937.html

BTW Trumptman, please don't take the title of this post personally. I just thought it made a good title and besides you believe in a public healthcare system for all, right?

A public healthcare system wouldn't necessarily effect laws governing custody laws etc or sick leave for private businesses. Though in Europe I believe there are some mandatory rules governing sick leave time and maternity leave which certainly the people I speak to here in the UK, value as part of what they see as the healthcare system.

Obviously there are many pro's and con's to following different models and as things stand in the US everything is very divided up into very distinct groups. That's partly why it's difficult to change and partly how those who are happy with the status quo fight to keep things roughly speaking the same. But as you know that leaves a lot of people denied care or put off from seeking care until their conditions have worsened.

As far as what's happening now in D.C. I just haven't been following it closely yet, but I will start to keep an eye on it. No doubt America is a long way from having a system that isn't heavily biased to those with the money, no matter what kicking and screaming seems to be happening.

If I read up on some of the details in your post and form a view, I'll chip in with a response.

I should add that developed nations , except the US, haven't let getting bogged down in financial bogey men figures, put them off enacting system's their citizens want. The way I look at is, it's one of the few arguments left for those who are opposed to universal healthcare to create false road blocks. But hey, no surprise there at all.

@ trumptman

You have pointed out a problem with the system and what will happen once Obama is done with the system (even worse). However, you did not propose an alternative solution that people could rally behind. Without that, I fear that this will quickly break down into a senseless debate of Liberal vs Conservative or Democrat vs Republican argument - which does everyone little good as compared to debating and talking about solutions.

I'll go ahead and suggest an alternative to get the ball rolling.

For those of you who have statistical knowledge; you should appreciate what I'm about to say. Let's create a distribution of the cost of health care for citizens in this country provided by business (not subsidized by government). Naturally, from this, you'll derive a mean cost. If you have government take care of (subsidize) the cost of the top 10 % to 15 % of the highest cost individuals, you will have eliminated them from the distribution, which will lead to a new distribution. One with a significantly lower mean cost for everyone.

For those of you who do not have basic statistical knowledge, I'll re-state what I said above in a way that may be more comprehensible.

Have government subsidize the top 10 to 15 percent of people in America who have the highest health care costs. By doing this, all the outliers and the rest of the significantly above normal people with health care costs are taken care of and therefore, do not factor into the business cost of providing health care for the general population. By lowering the business cost so dramatically, they can provide cheaper, superior health care services to the general populace. [Edit Add: Expanding reach and richness - Blown to Bits - good book]

Right now, we currently have a system which is mostly business based. This is inefficient as businesses cannot effectively take care of the whole population, and regulations in this regard are quite stifling - further worsening the situation. By increasing the cost of business overhead; everyone ends up paying significantly higher premiums for health care services.

What Obama and his liberally controlled Congress is proposing to is shift away from business provided health care to entirely governmental system of health care (Socialized Health Care). This is even more inefficient than the business provided health care and therefore more costly. Also, this further reduces the quality of health care as its being used to further extend coverage across America. In attempting to increase reach, you lose richness (Blown to Bits - good book).

With the proposed hybrid type solution, you've effectively made it manageable for businesses to cost-effectively provide health care for America while having coverage across America. It also has the side benefit of reducing the amount of governmental interference (which is always inefficient) but using government where it can be best applied (taking care of small populations). This is cheaper for both the government and businesses to adopt this; without requiring more tax revenue.

If people could function without government; we'd be angels. There is a reason why government exists in the first place. Government sucks, but at the very least, the type of government we've chosen (Democratic) is the least sucky of the other choices.

Also, as much as I'm an advocate for less government, government still needs to perform at a certain level of competency. You'll never get excellence out of government; but we do need competency. Currently, we have neither unfortunately. If we look at Reagan, we see a government that is run competently, heck, pretty damn well. Made a few mistakes, but it sure as hell beat the hell out of everyone else's leaders.


Precisely. Unfortunately, it'll take governmental action to fix a mess started by the government. While their at it, they can at least create a new basic framework for which businesses can profitable operate with significantly lower overhead. Too much to ask? Probable, but the alternative of not demanding it year after year, decade after decade, is - Obama.


I think you missed the underlying nuance I had proposed. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security itself would be destroyed. There would be no special "tax" system for the general population to fund this, and it would be an as-funded program. In effect, a nationalized bank or corporation. Specifically funded in real time to handle this, but not competing directly with the non-subsidized private sector of health care. They'd be taking care of two different segments in the market in effect. One of which cannot be feasible covered by business, hence where government can step in to be effective at that point.

And of course, no taxed health care. Something Obama blasted during the campaign and then went back on and is now considering as part of his health care reform. This is a mistake because it is too hard to build a system of equity - which the government is not particularly good at anyways in complex systems.


No, we aren't with an entirely business based model - I argued from such a point to create something that would be easier to grasp for others and to further help underline my proposition's point in its effectiveness. We both agree that the current system is not good enough, and that what Obama is proposing is much worse. The question is of how to let businesses operate in this sector of the market efficiently enough to provide competitive & good health care for the American masses.


I agree - the current model does not work, and the regulation and current structure is not cost effective enough to provide for future generations. I also agree with the historical context in which you present this.


I agree, both are insufficient. Hence my proposition which would setup a market that could be based around consumers while government takes care of the inherently cost-ineffective niche of the health care sector. Either those people won't be covered, or businesses will suffer tremendously by being mandated to cover them which drastically raises the costs for all consumers.

Think of this in the context of lowering business taxes. You've just given business an incentive to do more and to prosper faster - its about government allowing a situation where business overhead is not exceedingly high in the health care sector. Allowing for a competitive market based around the consumer.


Actually, when I talked about reach and richness, I was directly referring to some terms used in the book "Blown to Bits." Very good book on business. By richness I mean the quality of care - which you could say could translate into saved lives. By richness, I mean consumer choice.


We've never had a system that was ever envisioned as I outlined, nor has it been proposed to my knowledge in Congress. An underlying concept is that you need to reduce the operating costs of business - which by doing so, allows for more competition and lower costs directly for the consumer. Businesses already create consumer cost distribution models to figure out how to charge (the mean price to consumers). Government need only directly serve the people in the upper 10 - 15 percent to significantly reduce overhead and costs for businesses in this regard.

Also, we may very well start with my proposed solution getting passed and over the years, it evolves into a half-breed solution (which is bad). Just as the Democrats have been able to slowly swing America into a much more Socialistic system (bad). We can always start with good and end up with bad. It's up to the American public to make their demands known and be strong enough to stand up to politicians who may slowly corrupt and twist the system.


I can sorta see how you see it in higher education - which also needs reform, especially the lower tiers. Housing - I don't see what you mean. But lets contain those discussions in separate threads - need to stay closely on topic otherwise people will hijack the thread and turn it into a meaningless back-for rant rave.


The model I suggested is specifically crafted and uniquely suited for the medical sector. And from above, I think you missed what I was suggesting.


The fact that there are people in America who *cannot* be covered by a completely efficient business model is why government needs to take care of that 10 - 15 percent upper niche. Otherwise, what you have is mandate to cover them, and that raises the cost for everyone - very inefficient. You know the Democrats will play to "X millions not covered" and the best - most cost effective way to deal with that concern is the model I proposed. Liberal Democrats won't be happy that the government doesn't control it in the form of socialist universal health care, but we can also deny them the numbers they seek to post with a superior solution.

You can bet good money on the fact that if my proposal went through, people would defend it vigorously against anyone who might try to threaten it - as it threatens themselves - the American people. Take for instance Seniors who were concerned that John McCain would tax their health care - not legitimate however - see how they turned out to vote for Obama who vigorously opposed any tax on health care with the media's help? My system would be hard to de-rail; but not impossible once implemented. Of course; this suddenly makes health care a non-issue every election cycle for both Republicans and Democrats and so its not likely that it would pass.

@ trumptman

Excellent link. When my few liberal friends talks about said greatness of <insert socialist country here> health care, I talk to them about some of the facts noted in the above article. I bookmarked it so now when the topic comes up, I can simply forward the link to them. Thank you, you saved me quite a bit of time on future health care discussions!

That was a good video. It is sad to see some of the comments below his video show the desperation and ignorance of people though. People almost never see the big picture when they're the ones on the short end of the stick and their complaints are amplified under the current administration to the detriment of everyone - ironically - including those who complained in the first place.

Lots of good info at http://www.onthefencefilms.com

I suggest watching "Dead Meat", as well as the other films.

Trumptman, I don't like having you on ignore, when you post things that are constructive to an informed debate without the near hysteria and obsessions that have been too often the case recently. Hopefully, things will get back to more productive posts.

Anyway,

I haven't had time to go through all the links in this thread yet, but I was saddened to see the UK being so far behind the US, Germany, France etc with it's 5 year survival rates of cancer. Not being bankrupt or debt ridden, isn't that important when your dead.

I want to look into it further, when I have time, but I did a quick a google of cancer deaths per 100,000 of the population and found that in the whole of the UK and the whole of the US, the cancer deaths respectively are UK- 177/100,000 (2007) and the US 181/100,000 (2006)

The cancer rates are dropping in the US and UK. In 2005 the US rate was 184 and may have dropped as low as UK's rate by 2007.

Just thought I throw this into the mix of info here.
http://www.newsmax.com/us/cancer_dea...27/218456.html - US cancer rate per 100,000
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...ty/timetrends/ UK cancer rate per 100,000

Are You Feeling Lucky, Punk?


Yep. Some competition, there. Not to mention the fact that nobody will be able to sign up for private insurance once this bill goes into effect.

This is not healthcare "reform". It is healthcare "deform".

Very interesting - "ObamaCare" is being endorsed by the AMA!

Interesting indeed, considering the AMA has caused its fair share of the trouble we're seeing in the U.S. health care industry in today.

Can we just fix the fucking problem without this political theater and protectionism of the status quo?

Can we finally spend some money on fucking Americans rather than on Banks and Iraqis?

This explains a big problem in simple terms-

"Lieberman: How do companies manipulate the medical loss ratio?
Potter: They look at expensive claims of workers in small businesses who are insured by the company, and the claims of people in the individual market. If an employer-customer has an employee or two who has a chronic illness or needs expensive care, the claims for the employee will likely trigger a review. Common industry practice is to increase premiums so high that when such accounts come up for renewal, the employer has no choice but to reduce benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering benefits entirely. More and more have opted for the last alternative.

Lieberman: What tactics do they use in the individual market?
Potter: They rescind policies when a review indicates that an individual has filed a lot of expensive claims. They will look for conditions that were not disclosed on the application. Often the policy likely will be canceled and the individual left without coverage. Sometimes people arent aware that they have a pre-existing condition. It might be listed in the doctors notes but not discussed with the patient.

Lieberman: One way to end this practice might be to regulate it out of existence. Can we count on the industry to submit to more stringent regulation?
Potter: The industry says it will accept more regulation, but the evidence is that it flaunts regulation on the books now. Insurers are often cited for violations of many state regulations, and they usually agree to settle with insurance commissioners or the attorney general and pay a fine. Fines are the cost of doing business, and even if the fine is several million dollars, it is inconsequential compared to profits insurers make."

~ http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the...yone-care.html

The US is spending way too much on military spending, but most Americans want that. So I've got limited sympathy for them when they have regular shootings on their nightly news, the worst early education system in the developed world and an infra-structure and general decay no European can even imagine without seeing it with their own eyes. Britain spends a lot on defense but it's half the percentage of GDP that the US spends. If the rest of Europe spent as much as a percentage of their GDP on defense as the UK that would be a substantial amount, but wouldn't mean a wide scale slaughtering of programs that Europeans citizens, for the most part, demand.

Like you I believe in choice. If people want to pay for private insurance they should be able to have it. They can in the UK but can't in Canada. I think there should even be some type of system that you get some money back if you don't cost the system much money. Whilst that might encourage some to foolishly not use the doctors and endanger their health (though hospitals are the most dangerous places most people will ever be in) it's likely it would encourage far more people to stay healthy. I don't see why tax payers who pay for private insurance should pay the same amount to an NHS system as everybody else, maybe they could get some money back, maybe say a third back.

When it comes to free hospital beds in the US, I bet there wouldn't be so many available in a private system that actually covered everybody so those beds where utilized by the under insured, the not insured and the denied claims. I read somewhere but I don't know how accurate it is, that 54% of the total conditions requiring treatment in the US never receive treatment. I suppose one factor contributing to that, minus the ones just mentioned, might include people who just don't think the benefit of the treatment warrants the out of pocket costs and choose to save a few bucks instead.

Wow. So I wonder. If I were a Republican and my sole and only purpose is to stall and obfuscate the Obama administration at all turns, how do I spin this into being a good thing for Americans? I'm a Republican. I can't support health care reform. That's commie shit.

Oh, I know. Scare, scare, scare and cry about the expense. That's the ticket.

Oh, and mock and ridicule proponents of single-payer as not living in the "reality based community". That always works well.

I think you need a new scapegoat.

Scapegoat my ass. You guys are doing one helluva job making sure single-payer health care reform gets destroyed before it even gets started. And the only reason you're doing it is to try and take Obama down a notch or two.

I mean, why else do this? I'm certain you can't personally stomach supporting big insurance companies. Who on earth would? I'm certain you couldn't live with yourself by support big pharma. So why do this? Why try to destroy health care reform? The only reason is to be anti-Obama.

Period.

Insinuating that this is because of some strong allegiance to an ideology is intellectual dishonesty at best.

Good God, I hope so!!!



Ummm...no. Is to prevent Obama and the Democrats from bringing the country down another notch or two (further than they've already brought it).



Because their plan will make things worse.



I see the error in you thinking here. You assume that anyone who opposes this piece of crap that Obama wants must support the current mess we have. That would be a fallacious assumption.



Because this so-called "reform" will make things worse.



Of course that's not true. The sooner you stop looking at the world through partisan blinders, the sooner you'll see more clearly.



Of course it is, because you say so.

Of course, when the White House is hiding an economic update due to its fear that its $1 trillion-dollar health plan will get voted down, there might be good reason to be plenty scared about the expense.

"According to the Economist the total US spend on health care is 15.4% of GDP including both state and private. With that it gets 2.6 doctors per 1,000 people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average age of 78.2.
"As a whole Europe spends 9.6% of GDP on health care, has 3.9 doctors per 1,000 people, 6.6 hospital beds and live until they are 81.15 years old.
~ http://www.nowpublic.com/health/heal...-dying-younger

I stand by my statements. Particularly when being "warned" by the poster-child of insulting political caricature.

Do you stand by your misstatements?

Political theater = Political theater. Nothing changes. Literally.

What an inane load of garbage. Is this what you actually believe?

You bet your ass this is what I believe. And I could give two shits if you think my opinion is a load of garbage. [Side note: Where's Trumptman to rack your knuckles about riding too close to the ad hominem line when I need him? ]

I don't believe for one friggin' minute that supporters of the GOP (whether you want to classify them as Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Teabaggers, whatever) are interested in helping Americans with health care reform. I don't believe supporters of the GOP are concerned about the costs. I don't believe Supporters of the GOP care one shit about bureaucracy standing between you and your doctor. They pretend they do. But they really don't. They care about only one thing. KILL OBAMA!

I do believe, however, that Supporters of the GOP are interested in running for office, getting re-elected, and sensational campaign commercials that depict Obama as a failure. So if Bill Kristol is right and "This is the week to kill health care reform" and he is one of the defacto mouthpieces for Supporters of the GOP, then "helping" with the reform has NEVER been on the table. Killing it has always been the goal.

Maybe if you owned up to your real political agenda then maybe those of us on the left would respect you more.

Because what you said above... it isn't real.

So you've gone into "vast right-wing conspiracy" mode. Wonderful.

Conspiracy? Funny. Doesn't apply.

Just noticing that the current rhetoric has reached the level of noise. And that's the first sign that the Supporters of the GOP aren't interested in solutions, but only in politics.

People see what they want to see.

They sure do!