We got universal health care!

[Borges]

Originally Posted by maestro8

We grow the federal deficit even larger?

Originally Posted by Washington Post

The law will cost the government about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has also estimated that it will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over a decade.

Figuring out who exactly is going to pay the extra $, or what the government will stop paying for, takes more time than I've got. The Budget Office Report isn't exactly light reading.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by harper

Charles Murray's book, Losing Ground, from the 1980s describes the historical record of government programs like this, what they try to accomplish, and how and why they always produce exactly the opposite of what was intended.

Exact opposite

What a silly concept

[BillyTheMountain]

The USA has now joined other industrialized nations in providing health care for its people.

[nick]

As someone who lives a fairly healthy lifestyle, I (obviously) do not want to be paying for the medical costs of those who totally disregard their own health (obesity, drug use, poor life choices in general). On the other hand, I'm sure the guy who sits in front of a television for 8 hours a day doesn't want to be paying my health care costs for when I break a leg due to a climbing fall, or end up paralyzed after a bad skiing accident. How do you balance those two things out?

Should we have socialized health care that does not cover self inflicted problems?

Are there genetic tests that can be done to show if someone is obese due to a medical condition (bad genes), or lack of exercise and poor nutrition (bad habits)?

How do you determine if someone's broken arm is from a slip and fall in a supermarket parking lot (bad luck), or if it was because they were riding a shopping cart down a steep hill behind the lot (bad choice)?

I think it would be great to have socialized medicine cover everything. And tax certain things to pay for the medical costs they may contribute to (sugar would be a great one to start with). Other changes could be made as well.

It would be good to limit "end of life care", or at least stop people from saying "death panel" so that American's can at least talk about the subject seriously.

Stop allowing pharmaceuticals to be marketed directly to the consumer. While we're at it, increase government funding for academic medical research, and stop allowing drug companies to patent medicines for so long.

Legalize (nearly all) drugs, tax the drugs that cause problems (alcohol, cigarettes, crack, etc) to pay for counseling and medical costs.

Increase funding for school lunch and head start programs. Get rid of the junk food in schools.

Probably some other things too.

Cut out the middleman, for most people. Get rid of the insurance companies.

[wobbling bear]

almost agree
but

Originally Posted by nick

stop allowing drug companies to patent medicines for so long.

Well again a balance: drug companies should have financial incentives but in some cases there should be a way to get much needed medications without losing your shirt.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by nick

I think it would be great to have socialized medicine cover everything.

I think it would be great to never have to work a day in my life, and have government slaves tend to my every need. Those people should also never have to work a day in their life either and should have government slaves tend to their needs as well. Ah, socialism, because my little mind can't seem to seem how that utopia would not work.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by harper

Health care as a whole will necessarily deteriorate.

How does France provide such high standards of health care?

Under the USA system up to today, USA health care stinks.

[BillyTheMountain]

Before looking at that data, it's always worth reminding people of how much more we pay than anybody else. The following chart measures per-person health-care spending. And remember, while reading it, that the U.S. is actually advantaged by this measure: Unlike other countries, we don't have universal health care, so about 50 million of us are spending less than we otherwise might:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ngpercaphc.jpg

But even with all that spending, "the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia."

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by harper

I have $10K left from the bet that nobody took about the impeachment date of Bush that I am willing to wager on this. This is another sure-thing bet. Charles Murray's book, Losing Ground, from the 1980s describes the historical record of government programs like this, what they try to accomplish, and how and why they always produce exactly the opposite of what was intended. There was a weak apology written to this book that Billy or Raphael will chime in with eventually. What they won't chime in with is the $10K to cover the wager.

Greg, do you have any idea how many showers it takes to clean that kind of contempt off? I'm already on my third loofah.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by Gilby

...government slaves

You have that precisely opposite! We are now slaves to the government! (well, maybe just a LOT more so now) And many fear it's just the beginning...

[harper]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Greg "don't bother me with the facts" Harper

Originally Posted by JJuggle

Greg, do you have any idea how many showers it takes to clean that kind of contempt off? I'm already on my third loofah.

Originally Posted by harper

What they won't chime in with is the $10K to cover the wager.

No surprises here.

[nick]

Originally Posted by Gilby

I think it would be great to never have to work a day in my life, and have government slaves tend to my every need. Those people should also never have to work a day in their life either and should have government slaves tend to their needs as well. Ah, socialism, because my little mind can't seem to seem how that utopia would not work.

I would also like to continue working at my job and paying taxes that would go towards funding it.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by nick

I would also like to continue working at my job and paying taxes that would go towards funding it.

In a free society you would be free to make a living and voluntarily pay into whatever programs you desire! Just don't force others to pay for these programs you think they need, and, if they choose to do so, instead allow them to voluntarily pay for any programs they want to participate in or fund.

[johnfoss]

Did we just get universal health care or something? Don't we still have to wait until after 2016 to even see what the actual effects will be?

My question is this: Will this new approach to healthcare result in lower costs? I believe that was the intent. But I have come to see that whenever government tries to do big things, people/corporations clamber to take advantage, overcharge, mismanage, screw up and just plain steal. Without strict, powerful oversight, this seems to be the inevitable result. And not just for governments. As my company is doing tenant improvements to the building we will move into, the same thing keeps trying to happen there. If we didn't keep paying attention, we would be taken to the cleaners over an over.

Right now, if you have insurance, you really don't know what your healthcare is costing. The way things are priced is kind of insane, as it's all about who's paying, not about how much something actually should cost. So will this change under the new system?

[feel the light]

Originally Posted by maestro8

While I agree with most of what you say, here is where I have trouble: where the rubber meets the road if you will. Where theory meets practice.

When one is quite ill, time is of the essence. Heck even when he isn't quite ill... time lost from work costs money. Who would have the time to shop around? Especially given the fact that a call to a doctor's office rarely gets one in touch with a doctor or nurse?

How would one even shop around if they don't know their diagnosis? You're wasting a lot of time by going to the doc just to get diagnosed, then going to another doc to get treated... that second doc would likely want to re-diagnose you first to be sure you're getting the right treatment. This could be more expensive than if you just got treated at the first visit.

And who has sufficient knowledge to override a doctor's decision to question if a test or medicine is needed? Here is one place where insurance companies sometimes benefit patients... they can take statistical looks at remission / survival rates given particular diagnoses and treatments and sometimes make better decisions than doctors.

Yes, in theory, shopping around benefits the consumer. But I can't see how it plays out in practice in this situation. Sure, for elective procedures, in cases where treatment can be delayed, etc. But I don't think this will encompass enough of the medical market to make a big enough impact on pricing...

Edit: Food for thought: would you REALLY want a surgery done by "the lowest bidder?" At some point, price competition creates bottom-of-the-barrel providers. Mobile tonsillectomies? No thanks...

Major health care is not shoppable, like a dentist. Get in a crash, have a heart attack, stroke, be unfortunately shot (is there an other way to be shot?) and in my town they will haul your sad body to the only hospital we have. So much for having fun shopping. Your next choice is 150 miles away. Everyone here picks our only hospital, even if they are not bleeding that bad.