Comments on: Liberals and conservatives on healthcare reform Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Trevor H Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:49:20 +0000 People complain all they can about offshoring and outsourcing without acknowledge their benefits. And now just watch the only industry which has not been outsourced or offshored (even indirectly). How stupid..

Yes, many people are smart here. The cost is at the doctors and hospital. Bring in outsourced medicines, doctors and nurses and the cost will just go down. Easy and simple.

Right now, we need the insurance companies or there will be no one preventing the doctors and their hospitals from issuing ridiculous charges.

By: Anonymous Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:53:47 +0000 “…After the government finds out that they can’t manage the cost of health care by doing the job of the insurance company themselves, what do you think they will start cutting? Services, expensive treatments, tests, (just read comments by USSR)”
Posted by KD


If government officials get to distribute a valuable and scarce public resource, guess what criteria they would apply? Yep you guessed it right – their own interest. Even if that resource has no monetary value tag attached – it’s supposed to be free and used to maximize the public benefit – it has an intrinsic value that with certain effort can be translated into very material benefits for whoever controls it. Unfortunately the human nature is such that if they can extract these benefits they would. From that Soviet dentist of long ago that converted the dose of anesthetic, which is of no material value to him/her personally, into a very material box of chocolates of a value that’s quite material and absolutely personal. And all the way to the Democratic Governor that very recently tried to monetize for his personal gain the Senate seat still warm from Obama.
Medicare and Medicaid are already riddled with corruption and fraud. If these coverages are to be expanded population-wide, corruption will expand proportionally. Or maybe disproportionally – the bigger the system, the bigger the opportunities to game it.

By: KD Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:34:38 +0000 Until people realize that the increasing cost of health insurance is the AFFECT of the skyrocketing costs of medical care and over regulation, this problem will never be resolved. Do you blame grocery stores for the cost of food or gas stations for the cost of gas? You can regulate the insurance industry to death and the cost will only get higher. You can get rid of health insurance and it won’t solve the problem. To solve the problem, the focus should be on the CAUSE not the AFFECT.

By: KD Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:05:48 +0000 Paul R – there are a few problems with your theory…

“streamlines the administration of health care claims” – What you are suggesting (which is not what Obama outlined) is that you would have government “employees” do the jobs of insurance company employees. Oh that would be great! They’ve done so well improving efficiencies in all the other jobs they do! And, I’m sorry, your solution would be to get rid of a private “taxpaying” citizen’s job paid for by a private “profitable” company and replace it with another government employee paid for by …who? EXCELLENT!

“increases the risk pull” . The only time more people in a “risk pool” can reduce the risk is when everyone in the pool, “contributes” to the pool! As you mentioned, you would have all “taxpayers” contributing, what about all the people in the pool who don’t pay income taxes? How many people is that again? So basically, you are just redefining “uninsureds” with risk pool “non-contributors”, what is the difference? GREAT!

“doesn’t deny claims or try to discourge the use of appropriate treatment” – Are you kidding? After the government finds out that they can’t manage the cost of health care by doing the job of the insurance company themselves, what do you think they will start cutting? Services, expensive treatments, tests, (just read comments by USSR).

“middleman” wasting users and taxpayer money for private profit? The only way to remove the “middle man” is to have patients pay their doctors directly. Anyone can do that right now if they want!!! And oh yeah, our government would NEVER WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY!

Also, the last time I looked, health care providers et. all, don’t work for free! Without the evil insurance companies around to pick on, people like you will be looking at the doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. and complaining that they are “wasting taxpayer money”, that they shouldn’t be profiting from the misfortune and sickness of others. Maybe congress will pass a bill tax 90% of their income! Who knows?

By: MomHugs Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:47:36 +0000 Elizabeth Beutler is spot on about over-usage. People make different choices if they have to bear the costs directly. Costly procedures are done routinely if insurance foots the bill. This is especially true for people of advanced age on Medicare.

The Kettering Institute & National Issues Forum recently assessed the results from public forums in 39 states. They discussed 3 approaches to paying for health care: (1) require minimal coverage for all to reduce the threat of financial ruin, (2) restrain costs in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and (3) provide universal health care coverage as a right.

Verdict? Public has not yet come to grips with costs of making health care a universal right.
People struggle with trade-offs & see others’ behavior that increase health care costs, but not their own, nor adjustments necessary for better health or end of life.

Health Care: People Struggle with Trade-Offs
Article & Video: us_detail.aspx?catID=2&itemID=4202

By: Brian Choi Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:17:22 +0000 KD, so are you implying that the government is saying to those 47 millions that they can get any medical treatment and drugs they want? And that we’re paying for those 47 millions? Every other nation in the world manages to keep the medical cost down and therefore keep the insurance cost down. Thereby reducing the number of uninsured. What you’re saying is what US medical industry wants us to believe so we can continue to pay. Like some here said, only schmucks would believe that excuse.

By: Paul Rloden Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:38:49 +0000 The purpose of government is to “promote the general welfare” of all of us, “we the people”. Universal, single health care for all of us is cost effective because it increases the risk pull, streamlines the administration of health care claims, includes everybody and doesn’t deny claims or try to discourge the use of appropriate treatment, diagnosis, disease management, healthy lifestyles and pay for by equitably sharing the costs by all taxpayers and putting the for profit health insurance industry out of business. Why have a “middleman” wasting users and taxpayer money for private profit? The invisible hand of the unregulated free mkarket never has and never will provide universal, single payer health care for all. The status quo ante is not acceptable or competing private health and public insurance. Being ranked 37th in the world for health and spending the highest amount is not acceptable. Pass the Nation Healthcare Act, HR 676 now! Medicare for all. Healthcare not health insurance! Healthcare not warfare!

By: KD Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:43:16 +0000 Why is health care so expensive? If 47 million people said they couldn’t afford to buy food so the government gave them a card so they could go to any grocery store and buy anything they wanted, what do you think would happen to the cost of food?

By: mike tar Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:45:33 +0000 Oh my heavens! KD has figured it out! The problem with America having nearly 50 million uninsured and double the costs per capita of other comparable countries is that so many Americans are just too lazy to buy insurance until they are sick. I just knew it was really a bitter personal war between KD and her lazy neighbor who doesn’t work as hard as KD and still expects not to be left for dead.

Sadly America is chuck full of KDs with their smug answer to every problem being the laziness of others. It is all to easy for the conservative/Republican preachers of greed to rally this ignorance into doing nothing to correct the massive imbalance of what Americans pay and what outcomes we are stuck with. I honestly do not believe we will overcome this exploitation of the rubes and the greedy anytime soon.

By: Immigrant from USSR Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:23:37 +0000 Every time some conservative/Republican says the answer to the healthcare mess is competition and the “free market” they should be slapped in the face. As many other comments have noted there simply is no market for life and death. It is profoundly immoral and delusional to imply that the problem is that sick and dying human beings do not “shop around” enough to get a “bargain” heart operation or chemotherapy. – Posted by mike tar

Every time some liberal/Democrat says the answer to the healthcare mess is socialization of health care they should be issued a one way ticket to N.Korea. OK, this is cruel and unusual, so let it be Cuba, the Caribbean paradise of public health care – too bad there’s no way to send them back in time to USSR.
Life and death decisions made by a bureaucrat are not a single bit fairer than market based solutions.
Since the health care in a socialized system is inevitably rationed, someone who does that rationing may decide that for people older than X years the costs of – let’s say hip replacement surgery – are not warranted by the benefit, which may be defined as projected length of life or projected length of _productive_ life. The resources may be better spent on someone with many productive years ahead. Sounds fair to you, doesn’t it? Now imagine your elderly mom bedridden with broken hip for the rest of her life – that’s unless she gets that broken hip replaced. Is it still fair? Now think you don’t have enough $ to pay for that surgery in a private facility, but just enough to make that bureaucrat change his mind – will you hesitate to offer? But because of your offering, someone else (who either doesn’t have enough $ to offer a bribe, or isn’t smart enough to do that) will be pushed back to the end of waiting list – still fair?
Or how about that little example from Soviet dentistry of mid-1980s? There were shots of Lidocaine available, but in limited quantities, so they were reserved for extractions and people with unusually high pain sensitivity. All others had to endure drilling – even into the tooth cavity – without anesthesia. However a smile and a box of chocolates (very hard to get then and there, therefore very desirable item) would make almost any dentist agree with you that you have that unusually high pain sensitivity. A smile alone wouldn’t.
Or how about the separate health care systems for high level Communist officials and everyone else. In a regular city hospital you would likely get a bed in a corridor – until a bed in a room is freed. And the room would be probably as large as a public school classroom, with at least a dozen beds. The meals smelled so badly they’d turn your stomach inside out even if you were 100% healthy. Permanent lack of equipment and medicines, shortage in staffing, especially on nursing level. And that was in the City of Leningrad, other less important cities were much worse off, not even speaking of rural areas. On the other hand, there was Sverdlov Hospital, technically a part of the same Leningrad public health system. Single and double occupancy (you choose) airy rooms with color TV, gourmet meals, fresh cut flowers daily, latest equipment, Western meds, personalized service. Not necessarily best doctors though – they were hired based on CV details more important than skills. Too bad it was available only to a few select customers – so called “Nomenklatura” and their family members. The Kremlin Hospital in Moscow was even more impressive. Yet for treating really serious conditions of really senior (both age and position) leadership, they were either traveling to the West, or inviting Western star doctors for treatment in place, Yeltsin being the last example. All paid for from the same health care budget.
Was it fair? Is that the kind of health care system you want to see in the USA? I don’t. Nor do my parents, current holders of Medicaid and Medicare coverage (yes, combined – they didn’t earn here pensions high enough to be considered not poor). I’ll take my current coverage, with all its per-paycheck costs, deficiencies, copays, deductibles, whatnot any time over free universal health care advocated by the liberals like “mike tar”. Besides, it would never be free, Uncle Sam can’t just print the money, so inevitably the taxes will go up.