Public Option.

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

The problem is the pricing structure in the US compared to every other industrialized country in the world. Our healthcare system has allowed US pricing to go totally out of control. That is the real problem. And one that is not being addressed efficiently in any of the current healthcare "solutions" being discussed.

US healthcare costs need to be brought in line with those of the other industrialized countries. That is the first step to bringing true healthcare reform.

One way or another, that is going to happen. Most likely it will be caused by a total meltdown of our economic system when healthcare costs get to be such a large part of our GDP that they will have destroyed a major part of our consumer economy. Hopefully our politicians will address the problem before then, but, given the special interests in play on both sides of the ailse, I doubt whether they will have the integrity to do what is right by the American people.

What way do you think would be appropriate to lower costs?

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

First of all your superior healthcare argument is derived from the WHO rankings which are inherently flawed because of the criteria which have a bias towards any form of socialized care.

Secondly there is many explanations for why those countries have better quantifiable statistics such as life expectancy and I personally do not believe that is because of the healthcare system. A lot of it is the culture and infrastructure of our country which places us at a greater health risk on a daily basis. This includes the fact we drive more often than many of those countries, there is many more firearm related homicides, and also we lead a much unhealthier lifestyle while being exposed to more pollution. It is a fallacy to attribute all of the problems with the level of health in the US to healthcare.

If you believe that preventative care on an individual level is going to change that than I believe you are mistaken. While certain preventative health treatments such as vaccines have reduced the disease burden on population, many of the things that people believe to reduce the burden of disease (screening most specifically) change health outcomes very little.

Which therein lies the problem with the current bill. We are inherently an unhealthy nation and the current bill aims only to begin providing care for more people, not to decrease costs or to increase efficiency. Unless we begin a massive public health campaign the healthcare costs are going to continue to rise, and adding more people to the system is only going to make those costs rise more quickly.

You are always quick to blame conservatives for the problems, and fault the right for not caring about the people, but you need to realize people in our nation need to start caring about themselves and until that happens we are always going to have a greater disease and health burden than other countries and changing how physicians are paid is not going to change that.

WHO is not the only organization who has rated healthcare systems. Do some research.

Also, you do a real nice job of spouting the righty party line. That line about driving and guns has been thoroughly debunked. But the righties love to cling to their delusions.

And, as I have mentioned, the major factor in healthcare is that the costs per person and as a percent of gdp are much, much higher in the US, where our "system" has allowed medical costs to go through the roof, with little control.

But keep towing the righty line. It is easier to do that than to actually do some research and independent thinking.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

What way do you think would be appropriate to lower costs?

Name a bi-partisan panel consisting of doctors, healthcare experts, lawyers and politicians. Run a study comparison of costs versus the top 3 national healthcare systems and base US costs on those costs. Even could add a surcharge of 15-25% initially to help with the deleveraging (and if the panel could show that US service was superior and deserved a higher rate).

Then, make Medical School education paid for by the government. So that doctors would not enter practice with six figure debts to begin with. A healthcare commission would determine the number of doctors the system would need and that number would get full medical school rides. Candidates would compete for those scholarships through GPA and med school entry tests and may the best candidates win.

If someone did not qualify for a scholarship on merit, they could still attend a med school, should they get accepted, but would have to do so on their own expense.

Bottom line, a radical change MUST be made. Either we can make that change with intelligence, discipline and foresight or it will be forced on us during a time of chaos and panic.

No doubt on that whatsoever.

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Name a bi-partisan panel consisting of doctors, healthcare experts, lawyers and politicians. Run a study comparison of costs versus the top 3 national healthcare systems and base US costs on those costs. Even could add a surcharge of 15-25% initially to help with the deleveraging (and if the panel could show that US service was superior and deserved a higher rate).

Then, make Medical School education paid for by the government. So that doctors would not enter practice with six figure debts to begin with. A healthcare commission would determine the number of doctors the system would need and that number would get full medical school rides. Candidates would compete for those scholarships through GPA and med school entry tests and may the best candidates win.

If someone did not qualify for a scholarship on merit, they could still attend a med school, should they get accepted, but would have to do so on their own expense.

Bottom line, a radical change MUST be made. Either we can make that change with intelligence, discipline and foresight or it will be forced on us during a time of chaos and panic.

No doubt on that whatsoever.

I don't hate your ideas, in fact I like them though I do not know if I necessarily agree that it makes sense to establish base reimbursements on other nations economics. I thought you supported the current bill strongly. My point has all along been this is a poorly though out bill that is going to cripple the economy and health care system even faster than it is already occurring.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

I don't hate your ideas, in fact I like them though I do not know if I necessarily agree that it makes sense to establish base reimbursements on other nations economics. I thought you supported the current bill strongly. My point has all along been this is a poorly though out bill that is going to cripple the economy and health care system even faster than it is already occurring.

I am a pragmatist. And an independent thinker. Hardly any of those on this board.

As far as your statement about making "base reimbursements on other nations economics", that is pretty much what globalization is doing on a daily basis. Our production workers are now "competing" with those in other, cheaper labor countries. And, by and large, our higher cost production workers are "losing" and their jobs are going overseas in many cases.

So, why shouldn't American healthcare have to "compete" with the base levels of other industrialized nations?????? Riddle me that, please.

In fact, it is ultimately fair to do so, because the countries the US would be competing with are much more similar than the "competition" between American production workers and those in cheap labor countries. Conservative "free market" types have no problem with that "competition", now do they?

The righties love "competition". So why would they object to America competing on healthcare costs with other, similar countries?

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

The problem is the pricing structure in the US compared to every other industrialized country in the world. Our healthcare system has allowed US pricing to go totally out of control. That is the real problem. And one that is not being addressed efficiently in any of the current healthcare "solutions" being discussed.

US healthcare costs need to be brought in line with those of the other industrialized countries. That is the first step to bringing true healthcare reform.

One way or another, that is going to happen. Most likely it will be caused by a total meltdown of our economic system when healthcare costs get to be such a large part of our GDP that they will have destroyed a major part of our consumer economy. Hopefully our politicians will address the problem before then, but, given the special interests in play on both sides of the ailse, I doubt whether they will have the integrity to do what is right by the American people.

Dear Captain Obvious,

Everyone knows that health care costs need to be brought down, I posted a huge post of reasons why costs are higher in the US and some ways that they could be contained. A single payer option will contain costs by rationing care and slashing reimbursement to doctors and hospitals. In other words, the higher moral standard we have in the USA in terms of health care will be discarded for what politicians think is best.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Dear Captain Obvious,

Everyone knows that health care costs need to be brought down, I posted a huge post of reasons why costs are higher in the US and some ways that they could be contained. A single payer option will contain costs by rationing care and slashing reimbursement to doctors and hospitals. In other words, the higher moral standard we have in the USA in terms of health care will be discarded for what politicians think is best.

Yeh, you cut and pasted something from the healthcare lobbyists manifesto.

Fact is, healthcare has been bilking American citizens out of literally TRILLIONS of dollars with rates that they pretty much arbitrarily set, with a wink and a nod between health care providers and the insurance companies. There is no real competition in our healthcare system and the "fixes" you put forth are bandaides on a hemmorage.

Funny how you "free market competition" types have a blind spot when it comes to healthcare.

[ninowesco]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Yeh, you cut and pasted something from the healthcare lobbyists manifesto.

Fact is, healthcare has been bilking American citizens out of literally TRILLIONS of dollars with rates that they pretty much arbitrarily set, with a wink and a nod between health care providers and the insurance companies. There is no real competition in our healthcare system and the "fixes" you put forth are bandaides on a hemmorage.

Funny how you "free market competition" types have a blind spot when it comes to healthcare.

it's actually not funny

they way they blindly spout whatever lines their party tells them to spout - no matter the actual consequences to themselves - is disturbing

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Yeh, you cut and pasted something from the healthcare lobbyists manifesto.

Fact is, healthcare has been bilking American citizens out of literally TRILLIONS of dollars with rates that they pretty much arbitrarily set, with a wink and a nod between health care providers and the insurance companies. There is no real competition in our healthcare system and the "fixes" you put forth are bandaides on a hemmorage.

Funny how you "free market competition" types have a blind spot when it comes to healthcare.

No, I wasted a portion of my day drafting that in an attempt educate the 10 people that read this board. I wrote it based on my personal experience working in health care.

If the US spends 2.2 trillion on health care how can insurance companies be bilking American citizens out of TRILLIONS? Your numbers don't add up.

I will admit that the solutions I came up in a best case scenario could instantly reduce the cost of health care, but it would then slowly start to trickle upwards once again.

The problem with the cost of health care is not because of the amount of reimbursement for specific procedures, it is the VOLUME of procedures being performed. A high cost procedure can be absorbed by the system, but multiple high cost procedures on a single patient and repeated on numerous patients can't.

[Redwingenator]

The Netherlands have an unique approach to health insurance that includes private insurance. I think transitioning the US system to something closer to that would be a prudent approach in helping to improve the health insurance issues the US has.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

rqa, since, as usual, all you offer is yourself talking out of your ass, I accept your concession to the facts I presented.

Your "facts" were an opinion piece from an avowed leftist radical, but I guess that is mainstream to you And furthermore your cut and paste was an entirely random event, in no way related to anything I had posted in this thread. I guess a good demonstration as to how your brain works!

The "recession" you talk about ended in Febuary 1961, rqa. And from that point through 1964, it was a period of growth. The "jfk tax cuts" did not even go into effect until 1964, rqa

But as you insist on talking about JFK tax policy, I will leave you with a few JFK quotes on the matter:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

---

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

---

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

---

"I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment."
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit

---

"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."
– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation

---

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

---

"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

---

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

"Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment."
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery

---

"We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants ... I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment."
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board

---

"A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more and more growth for an expanding American economy."
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

---

"This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ... Next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to more capital ... I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

You should spare yourself further embarassment and just shut up, bud, because it is obvious you are totally ignorant about what you are trying to talk about, as usual.

More hateful insults from '73 . But do we really expect anything else?

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Name a bi-partisan panel consisting of doctors, healthcare experts, lawyers and politicians. Run a study comparison of costs versus the top 3 national healthcare systems and base US costs on those costs. Even could add a surcharge of 15-25% initially to help with the deleveraging (and if the panel could show that US service was superior and deserved a higher rate).

Then, make Medical School education paid for by the government. So that doctors would not enter practice with six figure debts to begin with. A healthcare commission would determine the number of doctors the system would need and that number would get full medical school rides. Candidates would compete for those scholarships through GPA and med school entry tests and may the best candidates win.

If someone did not qualify for a scholarship on merit, they could still attend a med school, should they get accepted, but would have to do so on their own expense.

Bottom line, a radical change MUST be made. Either we can make that change with intelligence, discipline and foresight or it will be forced on us during a time of chaos and panic.

No doubt on that whatsoever.

The cost of medical school does not deter very many potential doctors from entering medical school. The pre-requisites and 10 years of college combined with the cost do. Give doctors a free education, fine, but that will not allow them to complete organic chemistry, physics, calculus, volunteer, and maintain grades and MCat scores sufficient for entry to medical school. This especially is a concern when you have to assume that after delaying starting a family, buying a house, (you know the American dream during the decade you're in school) that cuts to reimbursement will force the average family practitioner into yearly earnings equal to teachers. Jeez, would you rather go to college for 4 years and have summers off, or 10 years and work like a dog?

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by RQA

Your "facts" were an opinion piece from an avowed leftist radical, but I guess that is mainstream to you And furthermore your cut and paste was an entirely random event, in no way related to anything I had posted in this thread. I guess a good demonstration as to how your brain works!



But as you insist on talking about JFK tax policy, I will leave you with a few JFK quotes on the matter:







More hateful insults from '73 . But do we really expect anything else?

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with?

A bunch of quotes by JFK, after I PUNK you with factual information?

Gee, I didn't even know JFK was an economist.

Seriously, "rqa" do you have no limit to the ignorance you are willing to spout?

That "leftist" you refer to gave actual facts and figures. Do you care to actually refute those facts and show them to be in error, or will you just keep quoting JFK and talking out of your ass.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

The cost of medical school does not deter very many potential doctors from entering medical school. The pre-requisites and 10 years of college combined with the cost do. Give doctors a free education, fine, but that will not allow them to complete organic chemistry, physics, calculus, volunteer, and maintain grades and MCat scores sufficient for entry to medical school. This especially is a concern when you have to assume that after delaying starting a family, buying a house, (you know the American dream during the decade you're in school) that cuts to reimbursement will force the average family practitioner into yearly earnings equal to teachers. Jeez, would you rather go to college for 4 years and have summers off, or 10 years and work like a dog?

Gee, are doctors making the same wage as teachers in Germany, France and the Netherlands?

Or are you just constructing the usual righty strawman.

BTW, I do agree that family praticioners are at the low end of the healthcare structure. Specialists are over compensated while GP's are generally not.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

No, I wasted a portion of my day drafting that in an attempt educate the 10 people that read this board. I wrote it based on my personal experience working in health care.

If the US spends 2.2 trillion on health care how can insurance companies be bilking American citizens out of TRILLIONS? Your numbers don't add up.

I will admit that the solutions I came up in a best case scenario could instantly reduce the cost of health care, but it would then slowly start to trickle upwards once again.

The problem with the cost of health care is not because of the amount of reimbursement for specific procedures, it is the VOLUME of procedures being performed. A high cost procedure can be absorbed by the system, but multiple high cost procedures on a single patient and repeated on numerous patients can't.

Where exactly did I state it was trillions per year? How about over the past 15 years or 20 years? Healthcare costs have been greatly exceeding inflation over most of the past 18 years, which I know as fact because I have been directly involved in purchasing corporate healthcare for that time period.

Problem with you righties is that you fail in critical thinking. Which is why you fall hook line and sinker for everything you are told by Rush, Beck and the other righties "leaders".

You people are just devoid of the ability to think critically.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Gee, are doctors making the same wage as teachers in Germany, France and the Netherlands?

Or are you just constructing the usual righty strawman.

Doctors average gross monthly income based on country
USA $11,698
UK $5,106 pounds or $3063 dollars
France $2,770 Euros or $4155 dollars

I don't have time to search for the Netherlands income at the moment, but I would think it would be significantly more then the UK or France and a little less then the US.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

I have been directly involved in purchasing corporate healthcare for that time period.

nice of you to try and pass that bill off to taxpayers. thanks

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Where exactly did I state it was trillions per year? How about over the past 15 years or 20 years? Healthcare costs have been greatly exceeding inflation over most of the past 18 years, which I know as fact because I have been directly involved in purchasing corporate healthcare for that time period.

Problem with you righties is that you fail in critical thinking. Which is why you fall hook line and sinker for everything you are told by Rush, Beck and the other righties "leaders".

You people are just devoid of the ability to think critically.

Fact is, healthcare has been bilking American citizens out of literally TRILLIONS of dollars with rates that they pretty much arbitrarily set

[PRStoetzer]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Doctors average gross monthly income based on country
USA $11,698
UK $5,106 pounds or $3063 dollars
France $2,770 Euros or $4155 dollars

I don't have time to search for the Netherlands income at the moment, but I would think it would be significantly more then the UK or France and a little less then the US.

I can't believe doctors make so little money in the UK and France. That's a ton of schooling for little award.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by PRStoetzer

I can't believe doctors make so little money in the UK and France. That's a ton of schooling for little award.

the government largely covers the schooling though, in exchange for taking half back when you get a job.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Doctors average gross monthly income based on country
USA $11,698
UK $5,106 pounds or $3063 dollars
France $2,770 Euros or $4155 dollars

I don't have time to search for the Netherlands income at the moment, but I would think it would be significantly more then the UK or France and a little less then the US.

So, please explain why doctors in the US deserve a higher pay scale than doctors in France or Germany?

Again,why should doctors be excused from being measured against their global peers?

Certainly you righties have no problem doing that with production workers, right?

Why the DOUBLE STANDARD??????????????????

[RQA]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with?

A bunch of quotes by JFK, after I PUNK you with factual information?

Gee, I didn't even know JFK was an economist.

Seriously, "rqa" do you have no limit to the ignorance you are willing to spout?

That "leftist" you refer to gave actual facts and figures. Do you care to actually refute those facts and show them to be in error, or will you just keep quoting JFK and talking out of your ass.

As you put the term leftist in quotations are you implying that he is NOT really a leftist? And your "facts", what are you using them for? Are you stating that by raising the income tax rate to 90%+ will result in some sort of liberal economic utopia?

I will leave you with a quote from a real liberal democrat, not the leftist radicals of today.

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

So, please explain why doctors in the US deserve a higher pay scale than doctors in France or Germany?

Again,why should doctors be excused from being measured against their global peers?

Certainly you righties have no problem doing that with production workers, right?

Why the DOUBLE STANDARD??????????????????

Because they're working in a separate market and the service is not easily transferable.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by RQA

As you put the term leftist in quotations are you implying that he is NOT really a leftist? And your "facts", what are you using them for? Are you stating that by raising the income tax rate to 90%+ will result in some sort of liberal economic utopia?

I will leave you with a quote from a real liberal democrat, not the leftist radicals of today.

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

Translated:

Since my claims regarding the lack of growth in the 50's compared to the 60's was shown to be an ignorant lie by the factual information provided by MSU '73, I will try to hide behind some meaningless quotes by JFK.

Signed,

rqa

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

Because they're working in a separate market and the service is not easily transferable.

That explanation doesn't hold water.

Doesn't explain why our physicians are compensated better than theirs.

Why is our market compensating doctors at a higher level than any other market?

How come our market doesn't compensate bus drivers higher than all other markets? Hard to drive a bus from a different country, right? That service is not transferable, at all. Yet US bus drivers are quite poorly compensated compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Bus Driver Average Salary Income - International Comparison

So, riddle me that.