What do you think healthcare "reform" will accomplish?

$650/month family plan for three.

Letsrun Roll call: I'm extremely curious...

How much do you pay monthly for health insurance? Family or Individual plan.[/quote]

Keith Stone wrote:

Ummm, in case you didn't notice U.K.'s favorable tax policy includes a national health care system.

And? It won't impact the company. I'm sure they fully vetted their liability and it was a hell of a better deal anywhere but here. Not to mention, dig a little deeper. The UK's nationalized healthcare isn't what it's cracked up to be.

We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Inflation, taxation, or default are the only way out, because spending cuts and prudent fiscal policy sure as hell ain't politically palatable here. Prince had it right -- "It was time to party like it was 1999." That was the top, which we keep trying to reflate. We will break eventually.

Mr. Price wrote:

See, that's why I'm all for small business getting just about whatever tax cuts they want. Major, multi-national companies though... I'm a little more skeptical. The bigger they are, the easier it is for them to overpay execuitives, hedge the market, and move overseas.

Not to get off topic here...

Small businesses, the job creators, are getting hurt the most right now, and this healthcare boondoggle will be a double whammy. As for multinationals, I see your point, and, what have we done with the banks? We subsidized many of them, creating unfair competition and preventing the reallocation of productive assets. We have allowed them to jerry-rig their balance sheets without any fundamental restructuring, in effect, mummifying them as Japan did.

Sagarin wrote:

Keith Stone wrote:

Ummm, in case you didn't notice U.K.'s favorable tax policy includes a national health care system.

And? It won't impact the company. I'm sure they fully vetted their liability and it was a hell of a better deal anywhere but here. Not to mention, dig a little deeper. The UK's nationalized healthcare isn't what it's cracked up to be.

We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Inflation, taxation, or default are the only way out, because spending cuts and prudent fiscal policy sure as hell ain't politically palatable here. Prince had it right -- "It was time to party like it was 1999." That was the top, which we keep trying to reflate. We will break eventually.

And Keith, I'm going to dig into this a little deeper myself, because when I see the words "tax treaty," my guess is that very little of this company's taxes or their "foreign" (Us ex-pat execs) employees' taxes are going to pay for ANY of the UK's withering healthcare system.

I'm not arguing that we should leave the current system with corporations. I'm simply saying that if giving it to the government is the alternative (and the trojan horse is step one), then let's leave not-well-enough alone. According to Rasmussen, two-thirds of Americans agree with me.

Actually, Sagarin, I turn 39 in two weeks and can still run mid 15:00's for 5k at 6'4" and 160 (when I am over my current injury, anyway).

The whole argument that any public option is a "stalking horse" for single payer proves my point. if private insurance can't compete with a public option, then the public option must be better. You are basically admitting that since private insurance can't compete on price, it won't be able to compete on anything else.

Why do you suppose western countries have better health lifestyles? Could it be they don't have a system that incentivizes (and doesn't disincentivize) this behavior?

I don't mind paying more taxes and then I can save on my premiums, deductibles, and my employer can pay their share of my premium to me. We save 30% on paperwork alone. And I will be free to change jobs or open a business without worrying about my healthcare.

We subsidize corn and food products that are unhealthy and we have a system that has no incentive for people to shape up or for physicians to encourage people to do so. You can't get around the much better health oiutcomes in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that has single-payer, or some combination of public and private insurance, so you have to come up wtih reasons why the evidence doesn't say what it clearly says. Why do you think the US has so many fat, unhealthy people? Has nothing to do with our healthcare system? People dont' make choices in a vacuum - they make choices that there are incentives to make (and no penalties) for making. Conservatives seem to think choices are just born out of thin air.

track4lyfe wrote:

Explain to us how doing nothing about this health care would support any of your questions....

I have a great state job where my insurance is only $21 a month

Letsrun Roll call: I'm extremely curious...

How much do you pay monthly for health insurance? Family or Individual plan.

My point in starting this thread was determine what supporters of "reform" think they're getting and how they think the reform will go about doing it. The questions I raised come from the arguments I've seen on the board as to why we need reform. It wasn't to compare "reform" to doing nothing. So far only 3 supporters have attempted to answer the questions, and only jjjjjjjjjjj has made any defendable points, though he only did it for about half the questions. The impression I'm getting is that most people who support reform don't really know what is in the bill.

As for your $21 a month insurance; it costs you $21 a month, since you're a state employee the taxpayers are paying the rest for you. I've had jobs where I paid $0 for insurance. That doesn't mean it was free, that means my employer paid for it. Your insurance costs a lot more than $21 a month.

For the your poll - I buy my own insurance (I'm self employed) and cover myself and my son. It costs me $230/month.

Let me add that single payer, unless I switched jobs or went to part-time or left to open a business, wouldn't benefit me at all as I have great insurance at the moment. My wife and I both work for the same University system and the deal we get on the high-end health insurance package owing to our "dual spouse" status is like highway robbery (although I still pay deductibles and a portion of my care). But, as a patriotic American, I would be willing to join a single-payer system that probably would be no better than what I have in order to reduce health care costs across the board and to have the flexibility to work part-time or perhaps open a business one day. I just know the evidence on single-payer is pretty good - if it was so awful, wouldn't Europe and Canada have at least somewhat worse outcomes? You say they have better lifestyles, but still if single-payer is the end of the world, you would think its awfulness would overcome the benefit of better lifestyles.

I mean, European countries have a crapload of ghettoized muslim immigrants from the third world and these poor wretched masses count in their stats.

Of course, most European countries have some combination of public/private insurance. Only Britain is socialized and Canada is pure single-payer. France, Germany, and Switzerland have some combination.

Brian wrote:People dont' make choices in a vacuum - they make choices that there are incentives to make (and no penalties) for making. Conservatives seem to think choices are just born out of thin air.

Ugh.... *THIS* issue again.

Brian, I get your point, but letting the discussion go in this direction is bad news. Don't get me wrong, you have a point but our two party system makes it way too easy to take achicken or egg approach.

If you say choices don't exist in a vacuum then they say you aren't being responsible. If they say you aren't being responsible you can say choices don't exist in a vacuum.

Bottom line is that politically this only serves to piss people off and create a debate that can never end.

OF COURSE that is how you "understand it". How else would you?

uh oh, did Sagarin just throw a bone to the spirit of objectivity and actually suggest a criticism of the Right's motives ???? Gasp.....

Whoops! I spoke too soon. Looks like Mr "fair and balanced", Fox Sagarin couldn't quite pull the trigger and actually criticize the right. But please note everyone, he ALMOST did!

(and before you try to turn it around and say: 'hold on buddy, I don't see you criticizing the left', *I* never pretended to be some middle of the road person who belongs to neither party and criticizes both fairly equally. No, I am a liberal democrat, and never pretended otherwise [although I certainly will criticize the left on some issues, just 10x less than I criticize the right]. YOU on the other bend over backwards to pretend you are something other than what you really are. And what you really are is an extremely partisan right winger. And HOW did I come to that conclusion? Oh, I don't know, maybe from the 1000's of posts you made critical of the left on every possible subject under the sun, and virtually non-existent posts you've made criticizing republicans. Somehow, that's what gave me a hint)

Yeah, I think we all got that part of your opinion, you know, because of the freaking TEN THOUSAND posts you've made on this subject over the last few months stating the same goddamned thing over and over again ad nauseam.

Jesus man, give it up already.

Obama and the dems are destroying the country, and we will never be great again, especially if health care reform passes, and we are all doomed to hell, and the us citizens are a bunch of stupid fat-ass disgusting pieces of shit. Did I get that all right? Oh yeah, are only hope is to elect right wingers, cut taxes on the rich, take out all gov't oversight/regulation of industry, and watch the free market cure all ills. I got that right, correct? Ok. Until you have something new to add to this, let.....it.....go. We know how you feel. Enough already.

(now here's where you reply, call me a moron, and say how everything I wrote in my post about you is wrong.)

Brian, again, I worked in a cardiology/wellness clinic GEARED TOWARD preventative medicine. It didn't make one iota of difference in regards to health outcomes, but it sure as hell was COSTLY.

I've never said private insurance can't compete. You're making an incorrect assertion. The trojan horse allows the government to gobble up more and more of the liability (keeping much of it off the books), and taking more subsidies from the taxpayer to create an UNFAIR competitive advantage. How do you compete with a taxpayer-funded monopoly that has no acountability? We need to ALLOW insurance companies to compete by getting rid of some of this ridiculous regulation, which is being held up largely by the right.

I agree about the corn subsidies, AS I'VE PREVIOUSLY SAID, and that is a problem for both the left and the right.

Again, you are comparing outcomes in Europe to the US. That's like comparing apples and Milky Way bars. We don't grow up eating the same way and engaging in physical activity the same way. We are different culturally. It's spurious to even attempt to find a correlation and it's the ruse of the far left.

Good for you on your 5k time though. That's very solid at that age. Funny thing is, I don't (can't run) anymore, but I'm at my racing weight from college (90-100 mile weeks) in my 40s because I eat a 50% "raw" diet and walk a lot.

Lance, I'd be lying if I said I haden't been pissed off repeadly by Conservatives over the past 8 years... but pissing off one of them won't do much. Give him a break. This sort of debate only puts the wackos in charge and that's the last thing we want.

I mean, seriously. Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? These people thrive in a politically charged environment just as much as Michael Moore does.

Mr. Price wrote:

I mean, seriously. Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? These people thrive in a politically charged environment just as much as Michael Moore does.

Indeed, and they're all equally worthless. But leave him be. This show is worth it, worth every second watching this guy stalk me and blow his top. Hell, I'd be willing to subsidize his "brain chemistry" medicine.

Brian wrote:

You can't get around the much better health oiutcomes in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that has single-payer, or some combination of public and private insurance, so you have to come up wtih reasons why the evidence doesn't say what it clearly says. Why do you think the US has so many fat, unhealthy people? Has nothing to do with our healthcare system? People dont' make choices in a vacuum - they make choices that there are incentives to make (and no penalties) for making. Conservatives seem to think choices are just born out of thin air.

Everything you wrote here is utterly dead wrong. What the hell does "much better health outcomes" even mean? You mean the results produced by the medical treatment itself, or statistics concerning obesity rates, average lifespan, etc.? The former includes so many different categories of conditions and treatments that it is impossible to make such a generalized statement, and the latter has much less to do with healthcare than with population genetics, lifestyle, etc. Obesity is a problem throughout the west (and the east for that matter); it is certainly not an epidemic confined to the US. Lifestyle choices are driven by psychological factors (values, goals, belief systems, etc.), NOT by the healthcare establishment! Physicians are almost powerless to inspire patients to make lifestyle changes regardless of what country they are in or how their healthcare is paid for. Your attempt to connect slightly lower obesity rates with universal healthcare is a sick joke.

I'll give you a great example. I don't like the whole corn/meat industrial farm complex and I would be willing to pay more money for food if it wasn't governed by this biazzro system. But damn, when you can buy a burger for .99 cents how the hell do you not do it? And healthy food can't compete in this food environment - I make lots of choices that I would make differently (and gladly so) if there was incentive to do so. The farm industry claims that they "feed the world" but all cheap food really does is make it so Americans spend the same on food that they would otherwise, but can afford to pack on more pounds than they need. People who eat shitty food are making a logical choice - they know little about reading labels or what is healthy (advertising and deregulation sees to that) and when they can spend their $$ on an apple or a bag of oreos, what the hell do you think they pick? If we had a food environment where healthy food could compete better on price, people might make different choices.

Correct. And I've witnessed it first hand.

So let's open up competition, amongst providers of food, amongst insurance companies, amongst physicians. It would eliminate bureaucratic constipation too, and let's eliminate the tort lawyers while you're at it. Consumers can drive supply/demand. You're making my point for me, and that is that the government has no role here, except for the very destitute, which is why we have this thing called medicaid.

Sagarin, it is a mistake for you to even give Sir Lance-a-Lot the time of day. He is the most rabidly partisan asshole out here- sees everything in terms of Democrat vs. Republican, labels all opponents of the welfare state as "conservatives" and then declares himself the winner of the argument by virtue of having exposed them as such. Just let his posts die.

"How do you compete with a taxpayer-funded monopoly that has no acountability?"

Sure it does - it has accountability to voters - if people hate it, they can vote in a bunch of Randers that can get rid of it.

"We don't grow up eating the same way and engaging in physical activity the same way. We are different culturally."

Why, though? What is it about America? Have our pro-business policies nudged behaviors in a direction we don't want, under the guise of "freedom"?

But why don't libertarians ever rail against and take on the subsidies given to businesses? It is always "oh shit, here comes socialism!" and never "oh shit, government is acting fist in glove with big corporations to administer their interests". If I heard alot of both, I would be more receptive to the argument. I don't hear any of these conservative anti-socialism folks (like my grandstanding jackass congressmen here in Iowa Steve King) wanting to abolish the corn subsidy. All libertarians want to do is concentrate on the negative effects of government help to individuals, but never the disincentives and perverse incentives created by government aid to big business and business dominated sectors of our economy. I don't see conservatives marching on Washington to get rid of the corn subsidy.