The Return of Hillarycare

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Here's another questionable part of that article:

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

However, others claim this:

Physicians for a National Health Program - Health Care is a Human Right

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

So that article claims if the government drives down costs, it will erase incentives to innovate. But is that necessarily true? If 31% of every health care dollar is spent on bureaucracy, then a single payer system could drive down costs 31% without having any effect whatsoever on the mechanisms which give incentives to doctors, inventors, investors, etc. The only people it would affect would be the insurance industry, who have a great incentive to drive up the cost of navigating through their private bureaucracy.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Welcome back bro! Where ya been?

huh?

*edit* I haven't really left? I'm just a bit more irregular compared to some of the other users.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by hsmith

so you just point out failures of gov't run health care for a small number of people, yet you want the gov't to run everyones health care

I guess reading comprehension is not a strong suit among conservatives on this board. I have explained several times on this thread that the health care system I advocate is the very same one that our Senators, Congressmen, Federal employees, and federal retirees now have. You don't hear THEM complaining. It's a good system involving private insurance companies and competetive rates. I simply state that everyone in this country should have access to the same plan. I'm beginning to see why those of you on the right are so against this. You evidently are either too lazy or too dense to bother reading what this is really all about. Basically, the prevailing attitude seems to be, "Let's just call it socialism and move on." I think that's a simplistic and juvenile way of addressing issues, but that seems to be the MO here. Oh, well.Hell, it's ALL socialism, right? Wrong.

The VA system is a totally different issue. The VA hospital system is actually doing some positive things that the private sector should be doing. For example, they have negotiated the price of drugs in order to keep costs down;they have gotten rid of paper work ,instead using computer files, which a lot of private hospitals still haven't done. All this in spite of the cuts in funding to the VA system buy the Bush administration, whose mantra of "support our troops" doesn't carry over to supporting the returning troops who come back having to wait for service from the VA system due to a lack of committment from our "fearless leader."

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way, and you guys on the right just don't enjoy digging for facts or seeing things the way they really are. You'd much rather tailer the argument to fit your preconcieved notion that any kind of health care reform amounts to "socialised medicine." I fully expect somebody to come out and repeat the argument, AGAIN, that the VA system is somehow the same as the FEHB program. Ignorance is bliss. Especially when one is too lazy or uninterested to bother learning what the facts are.Try reviewing what has been written on this subject throughout this thread before you come back with simplistic nonsense.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I'm beginning to see why those of you on the right are so against this. You evidently are either too lazy or too dense to bother reading what this is really all about. Basically, the prevailing attitude seems to be, "Let's just call it socialism and move on." I think that's a simplistic and juvenile way of addressing issues, but that seems to be the MO here. Oh, well.Hell, it's ALL socialism, right? Wrong.

This thread is about Hillarycare which is a government imposed sanction on our nation and businesses to provide health care for everyone. That is a socialist practice.

All this in spite of the cuts in funding to the VA system buy the Bush administration, whose mantra of "support our troops" doesn't carry over to supporting the returning troops who come back having to wait for service from the VA system due to a lack of committment from our "fearless leader."

You bought into the Kerry propaganda.
FactCheck.org Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Oct 9, 2003: Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.

October 27: Dean: I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.

Jan 4, 2004: Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .

Jan 22, 2004 : Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.

Feb 15, 2004 : Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.

Don't listen to their lies. In the last four years under Clinton VA spending was up less than $5,000 (in millions). It went up over $13,000 (in millions) under Bush in the same time frame.

"The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman

Ten years ago, veterans hospitals were dangerous, dirty, and scandal-ridden. Today, they're producing the highest quality care in the country. Their turnaround points the way toward solving America's health-care crisis.

This occurred under Bush's increased spending and the Bush administration.

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way, and you guys on the right just don't enjoy digging for facts or seeing things the way they really are.

Just like saying VA benefits have been cut under Bush?

You'd much rather tailer the argument to fit your preconcieved notion that any kind of health care reform amounts to "socialised medicine."

Not any kind of health care reform. But any kind of universal health care reform where the people and businesses are forced to cover the costs of everyone such as this thread discussion about Hillarycare, yes.

Try reviewing what has been written on this subject throughout this thread before you come back with simplistic nonsense.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

My family is full of veterans; of course I care about them...but what am I to do about the VA?

Let me get this straight; first I'm wrong for not supporting universal healthcare for all, but now that we point out how the one universal healthcare system already in place sucks, I'm wrong for not wanting to change that.

So are you for it or not? Do you want everyone to have the healthcare that the VA is, or do you want to get rid of the VA? I'm sure the private industry could do it better.

I just explained in the post that you were responding to that the VA is underfunded and understaffed due to neglect by this sorry-assed administration, and you come back and ask "What am I to do about the VA?" Amazing. Here's a clue: Call your representatives in Congress and ask why in the HELL they don't start properly funding the VA system. If you have vets in your family, I would think you'd be outraged that the government has cut funding for personell and equipment, just when our vets need it most. No, you'd rather blame the federal employees who work there. Here's another clue for you: It takes MONEY to run a hospital.

Try reading some of my other posts on this thread, and you'll see that what I am advocating has absolutely nothing to do with the VA system, it's a version of the FEHB program. The FEHB program is the same one (I'll say it for about the tenth time) that our congress people and Senators now have, as well as current and retired federal employees.You don't hear any of them complaining about it. It should be available to everybody, and will no doubt be a lot more cost-efficient than medicaid is now. It's not "socialized" medicine, and it offers a choice between private insurance companies.

If you are close-minded about this, as I'm reasonably sure you are, you won't bother researching it, and will no doubt come back with some simplistic response. That's much easier than intelligent debate. Here's a question for you anyway: If the system I am advocating is such a bad one, why aren't the Republicans in Congress demanding change in their OWN health-care system? After all, it's "socialized medicine", isn't it?

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This thread is about Hillarycare which is a government imposed sanction on our nation and businesses to provide health care for everyone. That is a socialist practice.

You bought into the Kerry propaganda.
FactCheck.org Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Don't listen to their lies. In the last four years under Clinton VA spending was up less than $5,000 (in millions). It went up over $13,000 (in millions) under Bush in the same time frame.

"The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman

Ten years ago, veterans hospitals were dangerous, dirty, and scandal-ridden. Today, they're producing the highest quality care in the country. Their turnaround points the way toward solving America's health-care crisis.

This occurred under Bush's increased spending and the Bush administration.


Just like saying VA benefits have been cut under Bush?


Not any kind of health care reform. But any kind of universal health care reform where the people and businesses are forced to cover the costs of everyone such as this thread discussion about Hillarycare, yes.

So, you are essentially saying that unless you can afford, say, three or four hunderd bucks a month for a private health care plan, you should just roll over, eat shit and die. OK.I don't drink any koolaide from either side. My wife works within the VA hoapital system as a nurse, so I'm aware of what goes on there. I don't NEED no stinkin' charts! You can play with stats and numbers all you like. Stats and numbers don't reflect the fact that the VA system is now woefully underfunded, especially considering the number of returning veterans from Iraq who need more physical therapy facilities and personell, spinal cord injury nurses, shorter waiting lists for patients needing surgery, etc. Let's say the chart you posted is accurate. That still doesn't reflect the increase in costs for the VA, or for any other medical facility for that matter. Have you heard about the proposal to force veterans into paying a higher % of their health care costs? I don't think that went through, but it shows you what the Republican party really thinks about our vets.

As I've stated before, "Hillary care" is a buzzword to get the right all feaked out and reactionary about the "socialists." It's nothing more than a scare-tactic by the right, and scare tactics are wearing thin. I don't believe that businesses would be required to provide health insurance under a new proposal for reform, whether you want to call it "Hillarycare" or whatever. Maybe that was part of the original plan back in the 90s, but it won't fly now, and I think Democrats are aware of that. In fact, big business will be behind health care reform this time, because big business is having a hard time providing health care for employees because of rising costs. They can't compete with foreign companies , many of which employ people who are already covered by national systems.

[6SpeedTA95]

Underfunded is different than a cut in funding. You can say costs have ballooned but bush has NOT cut funding he's increased it. PERIOD.

[JaJae]

They've asked for far more more money than they ever have and they received far more money than they ever have. Based on the results you have been bragging about in this thread, I would say they're doing ok.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I just explained in the post that you were responding to that the VA is underfunded and understaffed due to neglect by this sorry-assed administration, and you come back and ask "What am I to do about the VA?" Amazing. Here's a clue: Call your representatives in Congress and ask why in the HELL they don't start properly funding the VA system. If you have vets in your family, I would think you'd be outraged that the government has cut funding for personell and equipment, just when our vets need it most. No, you'd rather blame the federal employees who work there. Here's another clue for you: It takes MONEY to run a hospital.

Everyone asks for the government to fix the VA system all the time, as it is.

Try reading some of my other posts on this thread, and you'll see that what I am advocating has absolutely nothing to do with the VA system, it's a version of the FEHB program. The FEHB program is the same one (I'll say it for about the tenth time) that our congress people and Senators now have, as well as current and retired federal employees.You don't hear any of them complaining about it. It should be available to everybody, and will no doubt be a lot more cost-efficient than medicaid is now. It's not "socialized" medicine, and it offers a choice between private insurance companies.

What works for a few hundred or a few thousand won't work for 300 million. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of it all.

If you are close-minded about this, as I'm reasonably sure you are, you won't bother researching it, and will no doubt come back with some simplistic response.

Simplicity works best. That's been true throughout my career, and advocated by most of my advisors.

That's much easier than intelligent debate.

Often times the simplest solutions are the best answers.

Here's a question for you anyway: If the system I am advocating is such a bad one, why aren't the Republicans in Congress demanding change in their OWN health-care system? After all, it's "socialized medicine", isn't it?

The Republicans aren't doing a lot of things they should be doing.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Underfunded is different than a cut in funding. You can say costs have ballooned but bush has NOT cut funding he's increased it. PERIOD.

You can split hairs all you like. It doesn't change the fact that there is not enough money earmarked to take care of our vets, and that it's a national disgrace, and that Bushco doesn't give a SHIT about what happens to our vets after they return from a war that he started. The blood is on his hands, and he won't even bother to provide the funding required for their medical care. Period. It's amazing the lengths some of you will go to to defend this DUFUS SOB.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They've asked for far more more money than they ever have and they received far more money than they ever have. Based on the results you have been bragging about in this thread, I would say they're doing ok.

Some VA hospitals are doing better than others, depending on how resourceful the administrators are in each. They realize that they have to do more with a lot less, in terms of patient-to-nurse ratio. They've also had to increase waiting periods for surgeries and medical appointments concerning routine exams, etc. The bottom line is, our veterans are getting the shaft because there is not enough money in the budget to hire enough nurses and buy enough equipment, not to mention upgrades of facilities. Meanwhile, military bases continue to get too MUCH money, money that they have a hard time spending,and that usually goes to construct fancy gazebos, etc. In a nutshell, Bushco throws money at the military, defense contracters, etc., while giving our wounded returning vets the royal shaft. If you think "they are doing ok", you're out of touch with reality.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Everyone asks for the government to fix the VA system all the time, as it is.

What works for a few hundred or a few thousand won't work for 300 million. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of it all.

Simplicity works best. That's been true throughout my career, and advocated by most of my advisors.

Often times the simplest solutions are the best answers.

The Republicans aren't doing a lot of things they should be doing.

So, since "everyone else asks for the VA system to be fixed as it is," you might as well just sit on your hands and say "oh, well??"

That's a pretty lame response, dude. Simplistic thinking is the root of what's wrong in this country now, in a lot of areas. Simplistic thinking got us into the mess in Iraq, because Bush rushed to war and conned too many "simplistic thinkers" into believing that somehow Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911 and that the evidencce that he had WMD could "come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

How do you KNOW that the system won't work for 300 million people? If you replaced the medicaid system with a more effecient system, it might just work better. I'm not saying I have the numbers available to prove that, but I don't see you posting any numbers to disprove it, either. You simply state,(since you believe in simplistic thinking), that it won't work. That's incredibly simple of you, I'll give you that. You practice what you preach.