Obama's healthcare plan. Is it scary?
 

I was researching McCain and Obama's positions on healthcare today after realizing I was unclear on some of the finer points of both candidates plans. I took the following from Barack Obama's official website.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


This really struck me because I've heard many times from Obama supporters that If I didn't like the healthcare plan it was no big deal since I could still purchase my own insurance. (I'd have to pay more taxes to fund the government plan and buy my own but...) Still, I was under the impression that the private sector would still have a role in providing healthcare to those who'd rather but this "National Health Insurance Exchange" would basically remove the last shred of choice Americans would have in healthcare.

Surely at least a few of the Libertarians around here also take issue with this. (there are no conservatives) Am I the only one who's really scared about this level of government control?

No.

Nationalizing insurance companies doesn't scare you? I'm too late to help you rolmos but maybe I can find a few others around here I can help.

I speak from empirical experience, having lived in countries with nationalized healthcare. You have nothing to be scared of (except the taxes).

Oh wait, the waiting times suck as well. You can always go for a private company in case you are unsatisfied, though.

here's an interesting read

have these other countries been as big as the United States of America?

Yes, yes they have.

Yes, and they are definitely doing better economically than the US. I also believe their literacy rates are higher if not equal to those of the US, in case you care, Monte.

America, fuck yeah!

lol

Well, thats sort of what I'm worried about. (Wait times/ Quality of care) As far as going to a private insurer, I'm saying that there won't be any private insures under the Obama plan. I know to say he'd be Nationalizing insurers may be a stretch but its not far from true.

Nothing in that paragraph says that the govt is "nationalizing" (i.e., taking over) private health insurers.

That's one of the main problems though, correct? I was reading an article where some people (UK) have been forced to put off getting a simple dental extraction, or other important health care procedures. The person getting a dental extraction was forced to wait up to 7 months, kept on antibiotics and pain pills the entire time.

I haven't really dug deep on how it works for other countries. I realize alot of people feel that some health care is better than none, when it comes to NHC but I would disagree.

I've lived without insurance for many years, and know how it is to go to a free clinic. It's not the best of places to go, but at least you're not waiting for a procedure and you can pay on a sliding scale fee.

Now that I have had insurance the past few years (blue cross), I've met challenges with it too. They wanted to cut off treatments I was getting a year ago, all because the doctor felt I was very improved, but continuing treatments is what keeps me well. Blue Cross stopped paying for it, so now I pay out of pocket and pay the insurance premium.

Either way we go, NHC or private insurance, it's not working the way it should.

Whats the difference Debaser? It's for dramatic emphasis and a little over the top to call it that but the level of control mentioned in the paragraph excludes any entity (in my veiw) from being considered a private company in the free market sense. It sounds more like a non profit charity of some kind. Anyway, what kind of profit margins does Obama think are fair? Why would anyone buy private insurance if they're going to end up with the same level of care?

I'm left scratching my head wondering: how in the world can a private insurance company compete with the federal government when the government stacks the deck? How can a private insurer give me a good rate when I'll be having to pay for 1 million cancer patients treatment even though I'm healthy and will already be paying for 10 million cancer patients when my taxes go through the roof?

It seems obvious to me that Socialized medicine proponents know they wouldn't be able to compete with private industry so just like in Canada they make it as difficult as possible for insurance companies to do business.

I'm scared! Can't you tell? How many questions did I just ask?

Fedex, DHL, UPS are all private companies competing with the federal government.

I don't think Fedex and UPS have nearly as many regulations as the insurers will. Fedex, DHL and UPS also don't have the Feds seting prices, the market sets the prices.

The healthcare system problem is massive and convoluted. I can't easily explain in all the problems with it and at the same time clear up all the numerous misconceptions you have on other countries national healthcare systems.

I highly suggest you find a hour of your time to watch this documentary from pbs.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/
"Watch full program online"

It's highly illuminating and shows the pros and cons of five national healthcare systems around the world.

and when you finally get back to America, you need to realize this: America already spends more money per capita and highest % of its GDP on healthcare than all other industrialized countries in the world. And here's the punchline: all those other countries cover 100% of their citizens and they have better results (i.e., longer life spans, healthier, lower infant mortality rate). We spend more, but get less from our healthcare. Something is seriously wrong with the status quo.

this is a tangent:

The Fed does set prices. It sets the price of USPS courier rates. And due to lobbying from fedex and UPS, the Fed prohibits the USPS from charging bulk rates--preventing the USPS from competing fairly against fedex and UPS for courier deliveries. Even the govt uses Fedex instead of the USPS for courier service. So there's government regulations alright, but its against the govt for the specific benefit of private companies.

pretty sure I cribbed all that from Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets by Kuttner

The federal government doesn't mandate they can't charge more for a delivery than the postal service does. This is a terrible comparison.

America spends the money because we allow the uninsured and illegal people to get free healthcare. Funny, no candidate seems to want to do shit about that. Their lawns are well maintained, I'll bet.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't like when its the other way around because it encourages expantion of the government which I'm not for.

Also, since healthcare insurance is a for-profit business, the overhead is extremely high compared to all those other nations.

pretty sure it's the way you like it more often than not these days. Why use the army to cook food when you can shove taxpayer money to Taco Bell stands at MOB's in Iraq? Why have the Army Corp of Engineers, um...engineer shit in Iraq, when you can shove taxpayer money into Haliburton and KBR, who then shamelessly overcharge the government? Why use the our soldiers to protect our ambassadors, when we can overpay Blackwater?

I never insinuated that there aren't problems with our healthcare. I think we need to get everyone covered and the problem will begin to correct itself. In no way do I think the government should do it alone and in no way do I think we should start a system that will never change once it's implemented. We won't be able to "go back" When we get sick of the lines and poor care.

I brought this up because I was surprised to learn that Obama's plan was even worse than I thought. I wish I'd have looked at it before. :erm:

If anything, Obama's plan doesn't go nowhere near far enough.

go watch that documentary.

Thats way off base but shows once again how we can never see eye to eye. I think the savings due to competition far outweigh any cost to consumers due to profit margin. You think if a company makes a profit it's akin to thievery.

I'm more likely to pin the blame on the uninsured not paying for care and going to the emergency room when they have a cold.

I will probably watch it later.

after that, watch Sicko. I'm sure it's just as non-partisan.

I don't have them on hand, but I've seen reports on studies that actually say that the overhead is more problematic in cost control than the uninsured...

As for jabbing at for-profit companies, I don't think its thievery. But think about this: health insurance companies make more money in profit the less they payout, right? So it's in their interest and profit margin to not cover you as much as you want. The worse you get treated, the more corners they cut, the more profit they make. It's perverted.

The evidence is out there. And just look at other countries healthcare systems for comparison.

oh so pbs frontline is partisan now? evidence, please.

remember debaser pbs is a liberal hate machine

Wait, what? You're right, Bill Moyers, the symbol of PBS journalism, perfectly non-partisan.

Bill Moyers has nothing to do with Frontline.

next excuse, please.

or how about some evidence?

or how about watching it first and pointing out the bias with your great skill?

Illegal immigration exists outside of the US as well. Take Spain as an example, for instance. Universal health care is just that: Universal. And NO, not all illegal immigrants mow lawns.

Some also pick lettuce and clean Wal-Marts and cook burgers

Spain doesn't border a third world nation, you know.

No, it's only the main entrance of almost all of Latin America and Northern Africa's European immigration.

...

You'd think Spain would do something about that.

They do. But they are not as fear-driven as so many American leaders are, and they (as well as many other european countries) have come to accept their role in the impoverishment of third world countries.

Health care in its current state is a nightmare. We basically have nowhere to go but up from here. So no, it isn't scary.