Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[ccbatson]

What better illustration of the dangers of bigger government than these thousand page bills/laws?

Thanks for the wonderful illustration.

[mjs]

Look, since HR 1583 does nothing, I hope it passes just to end the smoke and mirror show you're buying.

At the end of the day, collusion can't work without a high market concentration. The prisoner dilemma always comes into play and the weaker the market concentration, the more it comes into play. The FTC measures market concentration by summing the squares of the competitors.

In Michigan for example, Blue Cross has 65% of the market and Henry Ford has 8%. That means their concentration number is over 4300, which is pretty high. [[65x65) + [[8x8) + . . . This is the argument you want to use against statements that there's 1400 competitors because how the market is divided is far more important than the number of competitors. A market with only three competitors with 33% of the market each is less concentrated than a market with 1000 competitors where one competitor has 65% of the market. Score of 3267 versus the 4300.

The most common and easiest way to control market concentration is for the FTC to block mergers and acquisitions that will over concentrate the market. However, when the largest competitor has grown organically rather than through M & A, the FTC doesn't have this choice. So, the most typical option is to break up the leading competitor. However, if you believe so many people chose BCBS because of the high profits and salaries of their competitors, should you be assisting those competitors by breaking up a nonprofit BCBS?

Now, a government option has the real potential of further concentrating most markets. Some believe its OK in this case because its the benevolent government. However, I follow the same theory that the FTC almost always follows and is always given deference to by the courts. The theory that in the long run, intent has nothing to do with it. Prices go up in concentrated markets because when the competition goes, the market participants lose their incentive to innovate and behave efficiently. The Big Three is the most well known of the hundreds of examples out there. If a person still thinks profits are the problem and intent is the key, I'll ask once again. What makes you think a government plan can increase competition better than a nonprofit BCBS can?

[Detroitej72]

I'll ask once again. What makes you think a government plan can increase competition better than a nonprofit BCBS can?

Well, excluding BCBS, hopefully a government plan wont deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition the way many for-profit companies do.

Blue Cross gets stuck with all the leftovers as a non-profit because the for-profits cherry pick all the "good" risk people.

[mjs]

You don't need a government health option to make that happen. Simply pass a law that says providers can't deny for pre-existing conditions and its done.

Its already in the current bill, and it applies to all providers, not just the government plan. Its become big enough of an issue that a bill won't be able to pass without it. If the law doesn't require it from all, any plan that does accept pre-existing conditions would quickly become noncompetitive. This is even true for a a government plan or BCBS and as you can see, BCBS really competes.

It now sounds like the modified bill resulting from the blue dog compromises will end up being almost everything thats in the current bill with co-ops instead of a public health care option and it will come to a vote in September. Obama says he'd be fine with that. The reason I like the man is because he's reasonable enough to modify his goals and viewpoints when they become untenable.

However, the more liberal democrats in the house are now taking issue because that will allow Doctors to negotiate their rates with the co-ops rather than be forced to service the people in the government option at medicare rates. The politicians themselves say thats because forcing medicare rates will save money by paying Doctor's below market rates. Thats like feeding the poor by telling McDonald's they will either offer the poor fifty cent Big Macs or the ones that don't will be shut down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/...YWx0aGJpbGxpbg--

[ccbatson]

Deny coverage? What do you think rationing is? If you don't know, it is denying care on a huge scale.

[mjs]

Both denial and rationing are relative terms and both sides act like its some sort of concrete thing. If HR 3200 passed as is and someone had a broken nose, they couldn't get a free nose job. Some would then say the greedy HMO denied them coverage or the government option rationed their care. Its an extreme example to make a point that like the term rich, necessary coverage means different things to different people. The term is already coming under debate in Congress. Some want a government agency to track the success rate of procedures and medications to see if they should be covered in the future. Some think government beuracrats should study nothing and approve any request any Doctor makes because in his opinion, its worth the cost.

[ccbatson]

Relative terms? medical care is made available, or it isn't...that isn't relative.

[mjs]

So a person is rich or they aren't. Two rational people couldn't look at the same guy and disagree on whether he's rich?

Two well qualified Doctor's can't look at a patient and disagree on whether a surgery should be covered or even disagree on whether its even needed?

[ccbatson]

Did I say that wealth or richness was not a relative term? No, we were discussing and referring to rationing and denial of coverage for health care.

Surgeons don't decide what is, or isn't covered [[thank G-d).

Also of importance is that currently, if something is not covered, or denied, there are recourses [[private pay, a loan, charity grants, etc). Under Obama care, forget it entirely.

[mjs]

You think if we get a government option plan, a hospital or Doctor won't allow you to pay with money from a loan or grant? If a charity pays for something thats currently denied under private coverage why would they stop paying for it if it gets denied under public coverage? You should get some sleep.

[turkeycall]

Saying that a single-payer health system makes the government the health care provider is like saying that Auto-Owners Insurance is a car repair provider. Both conclusions are false. Doctors are health care providers. Hospitals are health care providers. Gary's Body Shop is a car repair provider. Auto-Owners pays the bill for the car repair after an accident. A single-payer health system pays the doctors' and hospital bills after care has been provided.

Will a national, single-payer health care coverage system pay less than the going rate for medical procedures? Sure, no argument there from me. But BCBS, probably all insurance carriers do the same. I had a procedure done a few months ago. Don't remember the exact numbers, but when I received the statement, $210.00 was the doctor's charge for the procedure. BCBS paid $178.00. The doctor wrote-off the $32.00. My balance: My co-pay.

A single-payer system is not socialism. It's health insurance plain and simple. Doctors remain in private business or employees of hospitals and hospitals remain privately-owned or, in some cases, city or county-owned and operated.

I came across this report while surfing for items of interest in regard to a Single-Payer Health System:

Canada's Single Payer Health Care System - It's Worth a Look
Bruce Robinson

According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.

An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.

Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead.

The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. The great success of their system causes almost all Canadian politicians, even conservatives, to defend it vociferously. It is called single payer because there is only one "payer"; there is no alternative program, such as private health insurance, to which Canadians can turn for basic health care. Since the wealthy as well as the middle income people have no alternative, they make sure it is funded adequately. This together with cost controls insures that everyone including the poor, who use the same system, receives the same high quality care.

Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer specialists. Canadian doctors make about one third less that American doctors and yet their satisfaction level is high because they have more time to practice medicine because paper work is minimized. Since there is a "single payer", it is easier to set up and adhere to budgetary limits. Effective planning eliminates duplication of facilities and expensive technology. In the U.S., competition has led to great redundancies in expensive equipment such as for CAT scans; doctor groups buy high technology equipment and then compete for selling these services.

The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi-faceted. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. Preventive care to an entire population minimizes expensive care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awards to cover future health care costs; they are already covered. Further savings occur because there is no longer a need for a health insurance component of automobile or home insurance.

There is less loss of productive labor due to absence and sickness and health care is much more practical and less expensive for companies to provide to employees. Estimates show that Canadians produce American cars for $700 less than Americans do because of the difference in the costs of providing health care to employees. The benefits to competitiveness are obvious.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office estimated that if we were to implement a health care system similar to the Canadian one, we could extend coverage to all Americans while saving billions of dollars annually. During the health care debate in 1993, there were 89 cosponsors of the single payer system. And yet, it was not given serious consideration. One reason for this is the well-funded health insurance power structure with its effective lobbying forces in Congress.

This single payer ballot issue will appear in various states in the upcoming years. It is anticipated that, just as with the 1994 California single payer ballot issue, the health industry will spend enormous amounts to defeat them. It is also anticipated that the issue will receive very little press coverage just as happened in California.
FAIR [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) reported after studying the 1994 California ballot issue that there were no articles in the media during the entire pre-election period that pointed out that other countries have single payer systems or what their experience has been. Americans might be interested to know that Canadians live longer, have lower maternal mortality rates, and lower infant mortality. Before single payer was implemented in Canada, infant mortality was similar to that in the U.S.; today there are 9.1 deaths in the first year of life per 1000 births in the U.S. and 6.8 in Canada. In addition, they have more hospital admissions, more hospital days, more physician visits, more immunizations, and more surgical procedures per person than we have in the U.S.

Ongoing misinformation perpetuates myths about long wait times for care, availability of high-tech care, and the amount and quality of medical research done. There are very small differences between the U.S. and Canada in these three areas. The large differences between the U.S. and Canada are in the tens of millions of people with no coverage or inadequate coverage in the U.S. The differences are also in peoples' losing everything they have and becoming destitute to cover medical expenses in the U.S. They're in the lack of preventive care in the U.S. which results in expensive treatment of illnesses in their later stages.

Economic considerations are very important as are issues such as the general state of a country's health, the anxiety over health care and the level of satisfaction experienced by those in the health care industry. The economics certainly indicate that the Canadian approach should be observed and considered as a model for the U.S. The U.S. spends about $1000 per year per person more than does Canada. We have nothing to lose by giving it an objective analysis, seeking out both sides of the argument. It's worth a look.

Quoting a letter to the editor from Ove Madsen in the Montana Senior Voice:
"I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."
According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.

[rb336]

Deny coverage? What do you think rationing is? If you don't know, it is denying care on a huge scale.

ah, yes, yet another bit of bats parrot babble

rationing, yet another fraudulent fear & smear load of wingnut bovine excrement

[rb336]

Canada's Single Payer Health Care System - It's Worth a Look
Bruce Robinson

There you go, like all the lefties, confusing the issue by bringing up facts

[turkeycall]

rb336,
Yeah, I know. But it is what it is.

[turkeycall]

Do I care that Bats believes a single-payer system is a socialist, collectivist, communist, or whatever other kind of "ist" is his buzz-word of the day? I couldn't care much less than I do at this very moment.

[jiminnm]

This provides a decent explanation of the issue.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mccarra...-act-of-1945-1

[ccbatson]

Rb...do you keep count of how many times you oppose an issue but don't provide any support? Better yet, what percent of the time is this your MO?

[rb336]

Rb...do you keep count of how many times you oppose an issue but don't provide any support? Better yet, what percent of the time is this your MO?

particularly funny, considering the source, and considering that THIS discussion, like most others, is chock full of fully supported comments. because I refuse to repost previously posted evidence is beside the point, as you had access to it, and either chose to ignore it or forgot it, nether of which are my problem. you lose, as usual

[ccbatson]

Rb you disregard logical argumentation as a form of proof. You do so for yourself as well as your opponents. The third party spectator can see this clearly and judge for themselves.

[rb336]

Rb you disregard logical argumentation as a form of proof. You do so for yourself as well as your opponents. The third party spectator can see this clearly and judge for themselves.

excuse me? logical argumentation? sorry, but you have never provided logical argumentation once.

here is what logical argumetation, absent facts, gets you:

The sun, stars and moon all revolve around the earth. We can see them move. we can not be moving, because we do not feel motion. ergo, the earth can not be going around the sun

besides which, I use fact to bolster logical argumentation. you use rhetorical fallacies. and yes, any third party can see which of us has better supported arguments

[ccbatson]

Sadly, it is apparent that you would not recognize a logical argument if it were staring you in the face. Next time we cross swords in a debate, and I put you down with this type of argument, I will be sure to point it out to you.

[firstandten]

In an effort to bring light to the right-wing darkness of health care reform. So we can all be informed I found this blog called please cut the crap.

Now, I don't normally link to a progressive site because I know you feel like I feel when Cc links us to Hannity or Michelle Malkin.

However this is different because the guy actually read HR3200 and is comparing whats in the bill vs what the RW is putting out. There's no spin, you can judge for yourself. I figure its better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...es-hcbill.html

[rb336]

the one thing that has annoyed me most about the dems on this is their unwillingness to just cal the right-wing smear-n-fear campaign what it is - a pack of bald-faced lies. they all say they are "rumours" not good enough. tell it like it is, 99% of what the right is saying is false, and purposefully false. In other words, lies. call them lies, call the reps what they are -- flat-out liars

[ccbatson]

True to form Rb...not a single example of the alleged lies you claim...pathetic.

[Lorax]

True to form Rb...not a single example of the alleged lies you claim...pathetic.

You really are boring me, now.

"Alleged?"

If someone held a cat up and asked you to describe it, you'd say it was a raccoon. Get real, or stop posting.