Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Name an efficient government program? I wouldn't even know how to begin the search.

I wouldn't know how to find out how 'efficient' the education systems is, but I would NEVER willing do without it.

i wouldn't know how to determine how 'efficient' the the federal highway administration is, but I certainly would not want ot do without that either.

I wouldn't know how to estimate the efficiency of say the military, public health administration, center for disease control, or a host of other vital services, but i do know I would not want to do with out them.

Maybe if you more clearly defined what you mean by efficiency I would be able to answer better, as it stands it is my belief you are looking to prove the 'high cost' of government services.

For example,

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.

link

Is spending 100billion dollars a year on the un-insured in this nation 'efficient'? I honestly am not sure, the variables have not been quantified, but I would be willing to venture the system could be IMPROVED.

100 billion is 10% of what Obamacare will cost per year and thats conservative considering some speculate it will be more like 2.5 trillion...

www.thenextright.com...

If the estimated population of the United States was put at 307 million, the end cost per year of ObamaCare would be just over $2.49 trillion per year.

The services you listed may be vital, but to list the different ways they have wasted taxpayers money would probably be more than the board software could handle.

What I want to know is how did the health care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

Have you looked at the previous attempts of government provided healthcare? If not Tenncare is a good place to start. What makes you think Obamacare will be so much better?

reply to post by mhc_70

You should check the background of Dr Fessler. He is not your average family healthcare provider. Nope. In Fact he is intimately involved with lobbying in DC on behalf of big pharma and private insurance. So I would say he may be a biased observer.

The AANS gratefully acknowledges the following companies for their support of the AANS Pinnacle Partners in Neurosurgery program:

Accuray Incorporated,
Biomet Spine,
Boston Scientific Neurovascular,
Codman Neurovascular, a Johnson & Johnson company,
Covidien,
DePuy Spine, a Johnson & Johnson company,
Elekta,
ev3 the Endovascular Company,
Globus Medical,
Integra Foundation,
Medtronic,
MicroVention,
Stryker,
Synthes Spine,
Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.

Thank you for your investment in the future of neurosurgical education and research!

Their support of this program is Strengthening Ties Between Corporate Partners and the Field of Neurosurgery.

Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD, is Chairman of the AANS/CNS Neurosurgical Device Forum.

NeurosurgeryPAC

Nearly 30 years ago, the AANS realized that the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in Washington, DC have a profound effect on an individual member’s ability to practice neurological surgery. For some of the most important issues facing neurosurgeons, including the need for medical liability reform, stabilization of reimbursement rates, increased research funding, clarification of emergency on-call requirements and others, the road leads through Washington, DC. Like it or not, federal policymakers have a huge impact on how we practice, when we practice, what we get paid and what patients we see. And this influence is only growing stronger. In order to maximize our effectiveness, we have added another tool to our advocacy arsenal: a political action committee. AANSPAC will work to ensure neurosurgery has a strong voice on Capitol Hill. Policymakers must know what is important to neurosurgery and our patients; they must know we will fight hard for what we believe is right; and they must be held accountable for their decisions.

What is NeurosurgeryPAC?
NeurosurgeryPAC is the new political action committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. NeurosurgeryPAC’s mission is simple: support candidates for federal office who support neurosurgeons. NeurosurgeryPAC does this by making direct campaign contributions to candidates for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives who are supportive of the issues important to neurosurgery. NeurosurgeryPAC is nonpartisan and does not base its decisions on party affiliation, but instead focuses on the voting records and campaign pledges of the candidates.

When was NeurosurgeryPAC formed?
NeurosurgeryPAC was formed in August 2005.

Doesn’t Neurosurgery already have a PAC?
The American Neurological Surgery Political Action Committee (ANSPAC) operated as an independent, non-affiliated organization from 1997 to 2005. It was dissolved in July 2005. The new NeurosurgeryPAC is directly affiliated with and sponsored by the AANS, which has many advantages over an independent political action committee.

Who may contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC?
NeurosurgeryPAC Contibution Form
NeurosurgeryPAC
Contribution Form
(PDF 110KB)
By law, NeurosurgeryPAC may only solicit contributions from AANS members in the United States who pay dues or have voting privileges. These members include active, active provisional, lifetime, associate and allied members. Honorary, resident, fellow and international members may not contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC. Also, foreign nationals cannot contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC. However, non-citizens who have permanent resident status may contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC. Contributions to NeurosurgeryPAC are entirely voluntary.

How much may I contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC?
NeurosurgeryPAC may receive up to $5,000 per year from any one individual.

How do I contribute to NeurosurgeryPAC?
Contributions to NeurosurgeryPAC must be made in the form of a PERSONAL credit card or PERSONAL check. Corporate, university or practice credit cards or checks CANNOT be accepted. Cash contributions are only acceptable up to $100. Contributions should be made payable to NeurosurgeryPAC and mailed to: NeurosurgeryPAC, 5550 Meadowbrook Drive, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-3852.

What information does NeurosurgeryPAC need from contributors?
Federal election law requires that NeurosurgeryPAC obtain the name, address, occupation and name of employer of each contributor.

Is my contribution tax deductible? No, donations to political action committees are not deductible for federal and state tax purposes.

What will my contribution by used for?
NeurosurgeryPAC is funded entirely by contributions from AANS Members. Contributions are used to support federal candidates who support the legislative and political goals of neurosurgeons and their patients.

What is the difference between NeurosurgeryPAC and NPHCA?
Neurosurgeons to Preserve Health Care Access (NPHCA) is a non-profit advocacy organization developed jointly between the AANS and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. NPHCA’s mission is to inform the public about the medical liability crisis. The majority of NPHCA’s funds are used to support Doctors for Medical Liability Reform (DMLR), a coalition of 10 medical specialty groups dedicated to educating the media and general public about the devastating effects of the medical liability crisis. NPHCA works to bring attention to the issue of medical liability reform. NeurosurgeryPAC makes political contributions to candidates who support reform.

Should I contribute if I already contributedto NPHCA?
Yes. While it is confusing at times, both the public education (NPHCA) and political (NeurosurgeryPAC) arms of the medical liability campaign need to be funded. For 2005-06, both NPHCA and NeurosurgeryPAC need to raise $1 million. NPHCA has focused on fundraising in 2005 and has almost met its $1 million goal. NeurosurgeryPAC now must raise $1 million for use in the 2006 elections.

Who do I contact if I have questions?
Questions regarding NeurosurgeryPAC should be directed to the NeurosurgeryPAC Washington Office at:
(202) 628-2072.

Originally posted by mhc_70
100 billion is 10% of what Obamacare will cost per year and thats conservative considering some speculate it will be more like 2.5 trillion...

www.thenextright.com...

Funny, that info comes form 'The Next Right' hardly an unbiased source for sure.

Here I'll play along with ya. I herd $600 Billion from Daily Kos

Oh wait here it is again:

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion,

link

Look at that! Did you know that the prices being thrown around are for TEN YEARS. Funny, I keep seeing $600 Billion too. Go figure.

Originally posted by mhc_70
If the estimated population of the United States was put at 307 million, the end cost per year of ObamaCare would be just over $2.49 trillion per year.

Find more references to that and I just might believe ya.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


I would love for the poor to have better healthcare--heck, healthcare period. However, I would like it to be in the form of tax credits for hospitals and doctors who are willing to treat them. I am wary of a public health database. It is the first step in knowing who took the vaccine or who declined this treatment. Mark my words they will use the information in the worst possible way.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

 

I would love for the poor to have better healthcare--heck, healthcare period. However, I would like it to be in the form of tax credits for hospitals and doctors who are willing to treat them.

What good is a tax credit to someone who gets all their paid taxes back at the end of the year and has no in-pocket cash to give to a hospital?

reply to post by Leo Strauss


So both sides have an agenda, no surprise, but it doesn't change his analysis of the study. Maybe you can point us to where his analysis is factually incorrect? In my opinion it is spot on.

some interesting bits...

As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers.

...if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.

“Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

The last one says the most about the intentions of the ones who formed the study IMO.

Regardless, it is a fact that people from all over the world, including people from the countries with supposedly better healthcare, come to the US for medical help. Why is that?

reply to post by Animal


I agree, the projected costs are all over the place. But the fact is dems and reps alike don't like it, otherwise the democratic majority would have no problem passing it.

Has there ever been a government implemented program that didn't go over budget requiring more funding? What was the last one...oh yea, "cash for clunkers".

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Whatever fraud and incompetence we have at the hands of private insurers will only be worse under the federal government.

I cannot name one program the fed runs that is efficient.
If the fed cannot even take great medical care of its Veterans, can mere citizens hope for better?
Medicare is a disaster.

With my health care, I know what I have, what I am entitled to and can pick my doctors.
With obamacare, :shk:

How can I hope they will make it any better when I see one calamity after another since the "beginning" of this "recession"?
Why fix the parts of healthcare that are NOT broken

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Okay, now that I have begun to see the trend of the use of the term 'efficient' I really have to ask, how do you define this?

I am in no way doing this to be purely argumentative but to foster conversation or debate.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Animal
Okay, now that I have begun to see the trend of the use of the term 'efficient' I really have to ask, how do you define this?

I would define it as not having massive waste, fraud and corruption which is embedded in all government social programs. Oh and plus all the government telling you what to do thing.

reply to post by Animal


Heres 5 examples of government inefficiency.

1. The Missing $25 Billion

Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report con­cludes that locating the money is “a priority.”

The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inex­plicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture

Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.

A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted mil­lions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.

The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.[4]

4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense

The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used govern­ment-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[5]

5. Medicare Overspending

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi­ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip­ients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com­pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart­ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip­ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA. (See Table 1 at the link.)

These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens’ co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.

Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare’s payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manu­facturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]

Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare’s inefficien­cies. Basic payment errors—the results of deliber­ate fraud and administrative errors—cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims pro­cessing and administration to several private com­panies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]

Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 bil­lion to $30 billion annually without reducing ben­efits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 mil­lion uninsured low-income households.

More here www.heritage.org...

reply to post by Animal

Less red tape, costs that don't spiral out of control (yeah, I know it does, esp. with drugs but I suggest it will be even worse with government).

And, maybe efficient doesn't really cover it.
I see nothing but mushrooming bureaucracy in gov't.
It can't help but spill over into what healthcare they inject themselves.

And, really, the BIGGEST, I do not in any way, shape or form TRUST the government.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I support a Single Payer System not the current bills making there way around Congress.

I believe Obama is in the pocket of TPTB and therefore you corporatist supporters have nothing to fear really. As Grover mentioned above I am sure it will amount to little more than the Medicare Part B legislation which will put even more money into their hands under the guise of reform.

The only hope I have is if the Public option is made available even on a state by state level it will eventually put the private insurers out of business. Just a hope!

I support single payer, but I have nothing against the free market competing and offering various options for those who can afford the purchase of private services. But really I am not concerned for the rich they always seem to squeak by somehow!

Simply repealing the Reagan Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy would fund healthcare for all. Nevermind cutting the "defense" budget in half.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Simply repealing the Reagan Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy would fund healthcare for all. Nevermind cutting the "defense" budget in half.

Why not, the top 1% of earners already pay 95% of the tax burden.

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Simply repealing the Reagan Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy would fund healthcare for all. Nevermind cutting the "defense" budget in half.

Why not, the top 1% of earners already pay 95% of the tax burden.

Well I am glad we agree on something!

I think we should repeal them all the way to the Eisenhower administration rates. Eisenhower was a Republican, I think he loved and served his country if I recall.

The fact is the elite people that control the government have been trying to destroy it and limit options and benefits to the huddling masses. If you believe government is "the problem" it's no wonder you spend so much time and effort trying to destroy it?

Remember Reagan the quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. That's just the guy you want in charge of your government.

Kind of like having Che Guevara or Mao as the CEO of GM or United Healthcare!

reply to post by Leo Strauss

The fact is the elite people that control the government have been trying to destroy it and limit options and benefits to the huddling masses. If you believe government is "the problem" it's no wonder you spend so much time and effort trying to destroy it?

Nicely stated. Big Government is not the cause....it's the symptom of Corporate power.

Corporations are far less likely to do what's in your best interest. Some people need to ask themselves why the health insurance companies are spending 1.3 million dollars A DAY lobbying politicians in Washington.

Is it because they want to help people? If so...why are they spending that much money a day on lobbying instead of CUTTING COSTS WITH THAT MONEY!!!!!

reply to post by Pathos

I would like to think that we could trust private insurance to adjust their premiums accordingly but we know that's unlikely. Herein lies the problem, in order to control the corruption of a failing system there needs to be regulation but control means the loss of freedom. I have to admit I haven't spent much time researching the pros and cons of different health care plans but it seems what is needed is a balance between private and national health coverage.

The only way a solution can be found is by understanding what is needed and searching for ways to make it work. I have read way too much negativity and failure in this thread before we have even started, this is no way to search for solutions. Disinformation through hatred and teaching people how to despise those that are a burden to our failing system will have no good outcome, we should all be careful not to become what we despise.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

The fact is the elite people that control the government have been trying to destroy it and limit options and benefits to the huddling masses. If you believe government is "the problem" it's no wonder you spend so much time and effort trying to destroy it?

Nicely stated. Big Government is not the cause....it's the symptom of Corporate power.

This even I, the ultimate adversarian, can agree on. A Public Option would undoubtedly be unneeded if the corporations were to be reigned in.

Not just the insurance companies, but also the tech companies and the drug companies.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

You raise an important question. I have not read the other posts, but I will briefly state my view.

There is a suspicion of government that goes back a long long time. So many governments down through history have gone criminal, corrupt, ineffective. This is partly because the populace expects government to deal with crime, corruption, and ineffectiveness, but they don't have workable handlings for these things. So governments tend to go apathetic, cave in, and get taken over by the criminals we hoped they would protect us from. Some say that has happened in America. If our government has not gone into apathy, it is certainly under extreme pressure in that direction.

Now: do you want such an organization in charge of funding health care? What are they likely to do? What they have already done: listen to power groups who insist that expensive but ineffective treatments are needed for all sorts of human conditions, and pay out billions into a criminal system that only pretends to make people healthy. Basic health and basic health care are simple, inexpensive, and not even very hard to do. But left up to the government, this is probably not what we will get.

No one is saying that people in trouble don't deserve help. Charity in America I think is bigger than in any other country. But charity has its limits. If investing money into an activity results in no beneficial change, then someone is basically stealing. We need effective programs that get a result at a reasonable cost, or the whole ship goes down because no one is allowed to leave until everyone has their life jacket on.

Technologies exist to handle these problems. But the government is blind to this fact. With a government that far down the road to ruin, I have a hard time trusting them with anything, much less my personal health. We will somehow have to make up for the lack of brains, courage, and ethics that exists in government today. With what we know today, we could replace the current system with one that would be strong and effective. Ultimately, we do have a "government of the people" so the solutions to these problems are our collective responsibility.

Originally posted by l_e_cox


No one is saying that people in trouble don't deserve help. Charity in America I think is bigger than in any other country. But charity has its limits. If investing money into an activity results in no beneficial change, then someone is basically stealing. We need effective programs that get a result at a reasonable cost, or the whole ship goes down because no one is allowed to leave until everyone has their life jacket on.

What I find interesting are the ones pushing for nationalized healthcare also contribute the least to charities.

More "do as I say not as I do" from the left. Pure hypocrasy.