|
Willa Rogers posted:Neither has signed Sherrod Brown's letter for senators supporting a strong public option, so that's what I'm going to urge when I contact Boxer's and Feinstein's offices (again). As far as I know, neither has publicly stated support that goes farther than the administration's platitudes about affordable and accessible healthcare (which mean nothing when it comes to policy). Thanks for this thread, Willa. Yeah, I emphasized Sherrod Brown's letter when I emailed Boxer and Feinstein the other day. But I understand what you're saying in regards to email, so I'll write some physical letters tonight, fleshing them out with some of the advice in this thread.
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong. Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved. Why The Current Situation Is Bad At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred. Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies. Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness. As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP - the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either - obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries. What Is Universal Health Care? Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types: In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well. In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden. In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada. For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation. How UHC Will Improve Things The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable - insurer decisions and lack of money - will no longer exist. The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs: According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison: Australia: $1017 Canada: $916 Sweden: $532 United Kingdom: $397 The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations. It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison: Australia: $2106 Canada: $2338 Sweden: $2468 United Kingdom: $2372 American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better. Frequently Raised Objections There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common. "America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent. Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America. The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea. "It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare." You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit. As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC. "This is socialism." It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position. "I don't want more government bureaucracy." UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state. "Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help." It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services. The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow. "Doctors will be paid less." They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education. It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go. "Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced." It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased. Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending. "With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up." This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system! "Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs." This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD: Canada: 17.7% Germany: 15.2% Iceland: 13.3% Australia: 13.3% US: 12.4% Sweden: 12% Ireland: 11.6% In Conclusion Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability. ^^^^guls post for those w/o archives^^^^ calenth eventually pretends he was always behind single payer, even when he was all "but what about my Right to eat cheeseburgers???"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:because if there isn't a public option from the start, the insurance industry has no reason to not further rape and pillage americans while at the same time denying them care
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
This "rationing" argument from the right makes me so loving nauseous. It's like saying currently the emergency department "rations" care by making you wait for your nosebleed because someone got stabbed in the face. It's just triage, plain and simple. Yes, you might have to wait for your elective tummy tuck. Tough poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:03
|
|
|
Is it any use writing to Biden?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
Some Random rear end in a top hat posted:hey it might take me a while going page-by-page but ima try to .pdf the entire thing that'd be badass as hell - the op contains a great information and the thread itself sees so many arguments deconstructed in such deep detail, it'd be worth however long it took  Cannibal Ninja posted:^^^^guls post for those w/o archives^^^^  thank you for those who don't know much about single-payer, that serves as an invaluable starting point - it was my introduction to details of UHC quote:calenth eventually pretends he was always behind single payer, even when he was all "but what about my Right to eat cheeseburgers???" i feel i always missed out on calenth, i didn't start reading d&d until around the time he left 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
calenth? i thought he still posted there lol
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:08
|
|
|
T-Paine posted:yeah this is all well and good but the best thing you can do is this poo poo right here Okay i'll bite how is leaving the house once every 4 years to vote nader for president the best thing you can do than willas OP or even trying to convince others to even vote for third parties in normal elections, not even just a presidential one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Is it any use writing to Biden? He'll appreciate the attention.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
emailed my rep, because emailing my senators is entirely useless. big john cornyn and the future governor of texas would literally laugh in my face if i asked them to support any kind of health care reform beyond murdering every poor person that gets sick
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:13
|
|
|
Cannibal Ninja posted:^^^^guls post for those w/o archives^^^^ this is a very good post i'm in florida and i'll start working on bill nelson and some reps in a bit. for all you other floridians, it's important to remember that bill nelson is a significant target to pressure because his constituency is largely elderly people who view health care as a top priority and who will benefit immensely from true reform. it's very possible to get him to support a public option so don't relent
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:18
|
|
|
Teacup Whale posted:when you're trying to convince someone that single payer is better than what we have, you're going to need both statistics and anecdotal evidence in your favor at hand. i've found that if you use stats in your favor, you'll get "but my friend in canada said he had to wait three months to get cold medicine!" in return. use anecdotes and you'll hear "but it's not always like that! where are the numbers supporting it?" so if you are writing your own letter, maybe include a little of both. are yot trying to say i should use multiple argument types, like some kind of rhetorical...triangle perhaps?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
Serious question from someone considering supporting UHC: I really appreciate the summary posted above, it answered some good questions. One issue I notice, is that a lot of the 'good' things about it seem to be based on the federal government's ability to be efficient, organized and relatively less-bureaucratic than normal. It is possible, and would be great, but I just don't have that much faith in the govt doing anything efficiently or effectively. Is there reason to believe they'll actually handle this more effectively than they handle other agencies/bureaus?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
A hamburger? posted:Serious question from someone considering supporting UHC: I really appreciate the summary posted above, it answered some good questions. One issue I notice, is that a lot of the 'good' things about it seem to be based on the federal government's ability to be efficient, organized and relatively less-bureaucratic than normal. The government wouldn't have a legion of doctors and nurses working specifically to determine what they won't pay for. You can remove a good portion of the administrative overhead by removing the profit motive and centralizing besides, we went to the loving Moon.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Public-Option-Health-Care/78652638780?v=info&viewas=14816438#/pages/Public-Option-Health-Care/78652638780 for people who want to do the facebook awareness thing, whatever
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
Medicare is huge and more efficient than private insurance, same with the VA and active duty military care.  There also isn't anything inherantly more wasteful about government. It's no less efficient than any other large bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
Cannibal Ninja posted:besides, we went to the loving Moon. what sort of timeline are we talking here? if poo poo started getting setup today when could i be sittin on the governments doctor table... i mean, i could wait a few years, but 10 might be too long to keep an erection
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, if healthcare reform were passed with a strong public option, how quickly do you think the costs of medical schools would go down in tuition? Would non-medical graduate schooling be affected in general?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:27
|
|
|
Thanks, CJ, for posting Gul's OP with formatting intact, I added a link to your post in the OP.rogenomics posted:i don't follow you. why would "everyone insured by bad plans" be worse than "large numbers of people not insured plus others insured by bad plans." and if there are huge inefficiencies in current insurance plans then i still don't see why there isn't huge amounts of money on the table for competitors to see that and offer better plans. or why state plans couldn't fill that gap. 1. The health-insurance industry is a virtual cartel, with 5 or 6 parent companies insuring something like 80 percent of all Americans. Mandated private insurance strengthens this cartel. This cartel is responsible for adding an administrative layer to health-insurance costs, denying care when it's profitable for them to do so (i.e., in most instances of expensive and/or extensive treatment), and in cherry-picking only the healthiest consumers to underwrite. 2. Those who are uninsured now either can't afford to self-insure, are denied outright for insurance because of pre-existing conditions, work for employers who decide to not carry insurance, or don't think they'll need insurance. Mandating private insurance, as Mass. has done, forces people to pay more than they can afford or risk state penalties; it hasn't done much to effect a healthier citizenry, insure every citizen (as was its stated goal), and in fact has led to greater healthcare costs as insurance premiums rise and plans offered to citizens diminish. 3. Beyond the uninsured, tens of millions of Americans are underinsured, because the only private insurance they or their employers can afford are what's known as "junk insurance"; i.e., high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs while excluding many types of care. If you prove too costly to their bottom line, private insurers will drop you (or your employer's plan) and at that point, your only hope for coverage is to get on a waiting list for a state high-risk plan (which will run you about $1500/month in most states) or to spend months fighting for social security disability insurance, which, if awarded, allows you to join Medicare after a year of receiving disability benefits. (There's a new fasttrack program, I believe.) Only a public insurance option at the federal level, with strict pricing and care controls (as Medicare has) will force the private insurers to do anything close to competing. Otherwise, they already have the numbers of cherry-picked enrollees they need to sustain their massive profits, and will only be further enriched or entrenched by a federal mandate to purchase their products.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
A hamburger? posted:Serious question from someone considering supporting UHC: I really appreciate the summary posted above, it answered some good questions. One issue I notice, is that a lot of the 'good' things about it seem to be based on the federal government's ability to be efficient, organized and relatively less-bureaucratic than normal. every other industrialized nation in the world manages to handle it just fine, and the us government is pretty much just as efficient and competent as they are
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
Kringlebert posted:this is a very good post Another thing to remind Florida politicians is how happy most seniors are under Medicare, the largest socialized health program in the country. Would he ever think of voting to eradicate Medicare, and if not, doesn't he think all Americans deserve the same kind of medical care our seniors now receive? Dogless Liberal posted:Out of curiosity, if healthcare reform were passed with a strong public option, how quickly do you think the costs of medical schools would go down in tuition? Would non-medical graduate schooling be affected in general? Medicare reimbursement rates are fairly close to those contracted by private insurers, and in fact, most private insurers use them as the basis when negotiating with providers. I believe strongly that medical school should become more affordable and that there should be government forgiveness toward student-loan interest. But that's another topic worthy of another thread, by those more familiar with that topic.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:37
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Dem party leaders have declared single-payer to be "off the table" for the purpose of healthcare reform. Healthcare-reform advocates are now split between advocating for single-payer or pushing for a strong public option in any healthcare-reform plan. PNHP believes that only single-payer will make a meaningful impact on the current system Why should we care what they come up with if single payer healthcare is the only thing that will make a meaningful impact, and that's off the table?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
hey i got the thread archived in an .rar with individual page .pdfs and one big combined one. bout 300k. what's a good host?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
Kaiser Bill posted:Why should we care what they come up with if single payer healthcare is the only thing that will make a meaningful impact, and that's off the table? foot in the door technique/baby steps
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
Some Random rear end in a top hat posted:hey i got the thread archived in an .rar with individual page .pdfs and one big combined one. bout 300k. what's a good host? for a pdf, https://www.scribd.com for files, https://www.mediafire.com
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
nono they're all packed up in an .rar e: oh, there's the edit. alright will do
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
alright uploading now. total size is around 40mb
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:49
|
|
|
sweet it's done enjoy: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ee743f9788e4db9667cd7f7bd65f7eefe04e75f6e8ebb871
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 04:56
|
|
|
Some Random rear end in a top hat posted:sweet it's done enjoy: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ee743f9788e4db9667cd7f7bd65f7eefe04e75f6e8ebb871 awesome, thanks; will add to OP
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
awww poo poo i just realized the pdf saver didn't save the embedded links in the posts  oh well, at least the text is still there E: wait i just found my old copy of acrobat that should do the trick. alright lemme redo the thread with that and that should preserve the links. in the mean time enjoy the text-only version Some Random Asshole fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:04
|
|
|
Kaiser Bill posted:Why should we care what they come up with if single payer healthcare is the only thing that will make a meaningful impact, and that's off the table? Because a strong public option will weaken private insurers and strengthen the movement for single-payer, which is why the private insurers are fighting so hard against including a public option. If, say, Medicare or a public option modeled on Medicare is open to all Americans, it's estimated that about 100 million Americans or their employers would move to such a plan. Even if private insurers started offering better plans and pricing in order to compete, the huge shift of Americans into a public option would create a de facto single-payer environment.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
I'm going to be writing letters to both Inhofe and Coburn, along with Frank D. Lucas, my Congressman, who is a total farm subsidy-loving douche. Oklahomans: Coburn is going around the state to "town hall meetings" to answer questions, because he is up for reelection in 2010. If you can, go ask him in person, he's already passed through Stillwater so I missed him, lamentably.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:36
|
|
|
some more hot coals for your seat if you live in a state with a centrist dem senator; this was a comment within nyceve's dk diary:quote:I watched the Chris Matthews show today and Joe Klein reported that centrist Democrats are going to be coming out with a manifesto on healthcare reform this week. The manifesto will explicitly state that they will not support a public option. I wish that someone had a youtube video of it so that you could see it for yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:some more hot coals for your seat if you live in a state with a centrist dem senator; this was a comment within nyceve's dk diary: oh god damnit you've got to be kidding
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:56
|
|
|
Yes we can!!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:57
|
|
|
Did he say how many centrist Democrats?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 05:59
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:some more hot coals for your seat if you live in a state with a centrist dem senator; this was a comment within nyceve's dk diary: oh what the gently caress no loving way
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 06:01
|
|
|
lol how could you expect them to act any other way
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
Dogless Liberal posted:Did he say how many centrist Democrats? yeah I guess that's the question, because when I think of "centrist democrats," I think of everyone but the 16 who signed the health care letter + feingold. but if it's just arlen specter and fuckface nelson and a couple of others then it might be ok
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
i guess im dumb or something but why are so many democrats against single-payer? if the answer is that they are corporate shills, they can't all be bought out by insurance comps and i thought lots of other companies want it so they don't have to pay their employees' high insurance costs?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 06:13
|
|
