US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'

[ditzilla]

If this is so, then you can start paying TAX on all your internets now.

Most cable internet, there is not tax. Don't say blanket things.

Looking at my Comcast bill

Internet
Sales Tax
City Sales Tax

Yep, we're taxed already for internet and then there's cable tv:

Franchise Fee
Sales Tax
City Sales Tax
Public Access Fee
FCC Fee

Now as to competition - there isn't any here in my city. There's ONE cable provider - here it's Comcast and that is most of the city. Go way further west and it's RoadRunner/Time Warner.

Yes we have the lovely *gag* Verizon DSL - which is horrid, slower than dial up and they want to lock you into that 2 year contract thing.

Dish? Won't work here, not with building and tree density and where the dish would have to go. Satellite? same, plus even more expensive.

WiFi/Cell Phone internet? Don't have, won't have, can't begin to afford it (I am on a fixed income as I am disabled) and our house? being old, being near so many other buildings, wiring, whatever demons are lurking about - NOTHING wireless will work in this house except one spot - My roommate's window seat in her bedroom. Move 2 inches from that 1 exact spot? lose the connection. Yes I am serious.

We cannot even have cordless phones in the house, they won't work! Tried a wireless router, worked for 1 day and then *poof* gone, done, never worked again. And no not near a microwave or cordless phone, etc.

Net Neutrality is very important for all of us. The government should be involved to the extent they should be involved with all utilities - meaning going back and stopping these monopolies, break 'em up, bring in competition which would probably lower prices or at least hopefully get these companies to provide the full service we are (over)paying for.

Oh and Comcast is going up this month. Must be good to be the only game in town, eh? And yes I do live in Philly so I have numerous times seen that *bleeping* building of theirs - and we're all getting to help pay for it. Not that there's not thousands of sq. feet of unoccupied office space sitting empty all over

 

[kirbyrj]

Not only that, but the various polls all showed a majority of the people polled not having a damn clue what the bill actually meant - the majority found it too confusing.

I don't know about you, but I find these issues disturbing.

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Drivel, dangerous mindless drivel.

This is about the law and Government abuse in overstepping the law. The FCC was not trying to protect consumer rights the FCC was amassing power it had no legal right to.

It is and was absolutely clear the FCC did not have the legal authority and over stepped its mandate by issuing regulation it had no legal right to make. If Congress wants to give the FCC the legal authority to issue such regulations they can do that.

The idea that Government regulatory bodies can impose and create new law (which is exactly what the FCC did) should horrify anyone with half a brain, that is not a slippery slope but a damn cliff.

Just because the supposed intent of a regulation may be good that is absolutely no reason to allow Government agencies this kind of unchecked power. If you want to be be seriously fucked for forever just charge on

You have absolutely no clue...

The FCC was trying to protect the status quo of the internet under common carrier law (the same laws that protect telephone services from being abused), like it has been since its inception.

With this limit removed the likes of Comcast are free to do things like:
- Block competing service providers (why should they let Netflix stream movies, when they stand to benefit if more people use on-demand?)
- Steer traffic to their own business interests. (Comcast strikes a deal with Microsoft, and suddenly all traffic on comcast networks redirect from google to bing)

If you seriously support this wild west scenario where the service providers are free to limit and obstruct their customers as they se fit to drive profit then you seriously have no clue. If there were real competition, this kind of legislation would not be necessary, because if you were unhappy with broadband provider A you could switch. This is not the case, Comcast has a defacto monopoly in most markets it serves, and as such must be treated as any monopolist, and hav its freedoms limited such that is does not infringe upon others.

There are many many examples of government regulation gone awry, but this is one area where it is desperately needed in order to protect our freedoms. IN an age where most people (especially younger generations) rely on the internet for all their information needs one could make the fact that net neutrality is CRUCIAL for American freedom and democracy. How can one be opposed to government censorship (like in China), but at the same time be willing to hand over the power of censorship to for-profit institutions. It is a severely flawed logic.

Either way, this was just an appellate court ruling. I feel fairly certain we'll see an appeal in the future. Hopefully the supreme court will be more reasonable.

 

[Elios]

I don't know about you, but I find these issues disturbing.

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

ACORN shore shows up a lot in that i wonder why

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

ACORN shore shows up a lot in that i wonder why

That list is obviously hogwash made by crazies like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly who have no regards what so ever for actual facts, and will say what4eer they want to in order to anger their base.

There is no way ACORN would be written into any bill. In fact, isn't ACORN about to shut it's doors because of all the controversy?

I loathe the fact that we were talking about Net Neutrality, and this morphed into a conversation about the healhtcare bill, but with that in mind, let me say this.

The healhtcare bill that was passed was a scaled down moderate bill splitting the difference between conservative and liberal desires. Many liberals are pretty upset about it because it:

a.) isn't a single payer system and
b.) doesn't include a public option, but is run completely by private insurers.

In fact, it is pretty similar to what republicans were proposing as their "compromise on healthcare" during the 2008 elections. McCain was even on record supporting an almost identical suggestion.

So here is my conclusion. If you oppose this helathcare bill what you really believe in is the following:

- It is OK for healh insurance companies to take a persons money in order to insure them for their entire lives, and then as soon as they get sick and need the insurance, cancel their plans, and leave them to have to sell their homes, become destitute and possibly even die because they don't have coverage.

- It is fine that a very large portion of Americans can't get healthcare just because they were unlucky enough to have an illness and because of this insurance companies don't want to insure them, leaving them to - again - spend all their money on healthcare, destroying their finances and possibly leading to their deaths.

- It's perfectly OK that healthcare premiums are going up so fast that millions of people simply can not afford to go to the doctor, again leading to shorter lifespans (early deaths) and poor health.

Screw those people, right? I was lucky. I am healthy. I don't need to worry about them...

If something happens, and these reforms are overturned I almost wish for the people who orchestrated it to wind up with some debilitating life-theatening illness and have their insurance canceled to see how they like it.

The outrage on this issue that the teaparty nutjobs are creating is completely fabricated, just because they are upset that they no longer have Republican control of the White House and congress. Most of the points of contention are intentionally misinterpreted just to anger an upset people, just like the whole patently false "Death Panels" argument or the "Obama was not born in the U.S." argument.

Doesn't anyone have any regard at all for proven facts anymore?

I used to consider myself a Republican, then I got unhappy with the right-wing extremist born again christian dominance in the party and started considering myself a libertarian. These dasy I'm an independent. I still believe in conservative ideals, but I just don't want to be associated with those nutjobs on the right who wave their guns around and have no regards for facts what so ever.

We have to come to a real conclusion on the truth, and the truth is that there are no absolutes in anything in the world. As great a president as Reagan was, the truth is that government isnt ALWAYS the problem. Government CAN be the problem, but we also need government to protect the less fortunate from the abuse of the welathy and the powerful. There are many examples of poor regulation that has hurt business and our contry. This doesn't mean that ALL regulation is bad, and that when we see an injustice or an abuse we shouldn't try to legislate to stop it.

 

[kirbyrj]

Acorn isn't written in the bill...it is added for effect.

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with you on that. There is a difference between mandating that health care companies can't throw people out who cost too much and taking over the whole damn system. The Republicans urged for the former, the Democrats the latter.

The COST is going to be enormous...to the point of bankrupting the U.S. You can't spend money you don't have no matter how "noble" your intentions. I argue the same thing for the Iraq/Afghanistan nonsense and I argue the same thing for healthcare nonsense.

There is nothing conservative about that bill, but strangely, I find how whenever anyone says anything bad about it, it's always, "You're listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck." I don't listen to either of them, and am fully capable of thinking for myself.

It is downright shameful to pass a bill labled as "historic" without ONE SINGLE VOTE from the other side, buying off dissenters with special deals, and generally going against the wishes of over half of America. I hope they all get voted out of office and replaced with more fiscally conservative people before America turns into Europe.

 

[Elios]

have you read the bill that list is pretty much spot on

 

[kirbyrj]

Furthermore, yes, I'm sorry certain people fall through the healthcare cracks...I don't have health insurance because I can't afford it personally. Yet, I don't believe it's the government's job to bail me out.

 

[Elios]

Acorn isn't written in the bill...it is added for effect.

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with you on that. There is a difference between mandating that health care companies can't throw people out who cost too much and taking over the whole damn system. The Republicans urged for the former, the Democrats the latter.

The COST is going to be enormous...to the point of bankrupting the U.S. You can't spend money you don't have no matter how "noble" your intentions. I argue the same thing for the Iraq/Afghanistan nonsense and I argue the same thing for healthcare nonsense.

There is nothing conservative about that bill, but strangely, I find how whenever anyone says anything bad about it, it's always, "You're listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck." I don't listen to either of them, and am fully capable of thinking for myself.

It is downright shameful to pass a bill labled as "historic" without ONE SINGLE VOTE from the other side, buying off dissenters with special deals, and generally going against the wishes of over half of America. I hope they all get voted out of office and replaced with more fiscally conservative people before America turns into Europe.

other fun stuff you forgot about is this thing will KILL jobs
any employer close to the limits wont hire new people
ones over will cut hours and lay people off on top of that

places that USED to offer ok pay for entry level work (think tech support) will cut back pay on new hires if any and cut hours for every one else

should be fun to see how high turnover places like telemarketers deal with this my guess is higher quotas and lower hours on top of less bass pay

so much for creating jobs

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

have you read the bill that list is pretty much spot on

Just like the bill also supports death panels...

In that case it was a line in the bill that provided end of life counseling, or what is called palliative care, to make sure that peoples dying wishes are known and they can die with dignity.

Its a little bit like seing the image of Jesus on your toast... If you look hard enough you'll eventually find something you can misinterpret to be bad.

Have I read the almost 2000 pages of the healthcare bill? No, I definitely have not. (and I am willing to wager you have not either), but every example I have seen thus far of a line that purpotedly supports doomsday scenarios like the above has been perfectly innocuous when read by a sane person in context.

I feel fairly certain this holds for the list above as well.

 

[kirbyrj]

I hope you're right, but I doubt it.

Still no comments on the cost of this since, as we all know, the government knows how to waste money unlike the private sector where the bottom line is important.

Just like the bill also supports death panels...

In that case it was a line in the bill that provided end of life counseling, or what is called palliative care, to make sure that peoples dying wishes are known and they can die with dignity.

Its a little bit like seing the image of Jesus on your toast... If you look hard enough you'll eventually find something you can misinterpret to be bad.

Have I read the almost 2000 pages of the healthcare bill? No, I definitely have not. (and I am willing to wager you have not either), but every example I have seen thus far of a line that purpotedly supports doomsday scenarios like the above has been perfectly innocuous when read by a sane person in context.

I feel fairly certain this holds for the list above as well.

 

[Elios]

Just like the bill also supports death panels...

In that case it was a line in the bill that provided end of life counseling, or what is called palliative care, to make sure that peoples dying wishes are known and they can die with dignity.

Its a little bit like seing the image of Jesus on your toast... If you look hard enough you'll eventually find something you can misinterpret to be bad.

Have I read the almost 2000 pages of the healthcare bill? No, I definitely have not. (and I am willing to wager you have not either), but every example I have seen thus far of a line that purpotedly supports doomsday scenarios like the above has been perfectly innocuous when read by a sane person in context.

I feel fairly certain this holds for the list above as well.

the thing is the gov't make a living "looking for Jesus in its toast" thats what worries me

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I hope you're right, but I doubt it.

Still no comments on the cost of this since, as we all know, the government knows how to waste money unlike the private sector where the bottom line is important.

Agreed.

Cost is a concern. The way medicare is ballooning out of control cost wise, it seems crazy to add more to the federal budget from a medicla standpoint.

That being said, this is not insurance being completely funded by the government. There will be some subsidizing of plans on so called exchanges for those who can't afford it. It will make insurance cheaper, but the federal government will not be footing the whole bill.

It may be wishful thinking, but the theory is that having EVERYONE insured will be less costly for the government, because then they will go to their regular checkups and get their health problems taken care of when they are cheap and small, before they get big and expensive and wind up in the ER, where the government foots the bill already today, if people can't pay...

The congressional budget office (which are supposed to be non-partisan) seem to agree though. As to wheter or not this pans out, I guess we will have to wait and see. My guess is that at worst it won't get much worse. We already pay more thanany other nation in the world for healthcare, and get one of the worst outcomes in the industrialized world.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Agreed.

Cost is a concern. The way medicare is ballooning out of control cost wise, it seems crazy to add more to the federal budget from a medicla standpoint.

That being said, this is not insurance being completely funded by the government. There will be some subsidizing of plans on so called exchanges for those who can't afford it. It will make insurance cheaper, but the federal government will not be footing the whole bill.

It may be wishful thinking, but the theory is that having EVERYONE insured will be less costly for the government, because then they will go to their regular checkups and get their health problems taken care of when they are cheap and small, before they get big and expensive and wind up in the ER, where the government foots the bill already today, if people can't pay...

The congressional budget office (which are supposed to be non-partisan) seem to agree though. As to wheter or not this pans out, I guess we will have to wait and see. My guess is that at worst it won't get much worse. We already pay more thanany other nation in the world for healthcare, and get one of the worst outcomes in the industrialized world.

Jeez, I can't seem to type anymore. Too many typos, and no ability to go back and edit them...

 

[kirbyrj]

Agreed.

Cost is a concern. The way medicare is ballooning out of control cost wise, it seems crazy to add more to the federal budget from a medicla standpoint.

That being said, this is not insurance being completely funded by the government. There will be some subsidizing of plans on so called exchanges for those who can't afford it. It will make insurance cheaper, but the federal government will not be footing the whole bill.

It may be wishful thinking, but the theory is that having EVERYONE insured will be less costly for the government, because then they will go to their regular checkups and get their health problems taken care of when they are cheap and small, before they get big and expensive and wind up in the ER, where the government foots the bill already today, if people can't pay...

The congressional budget office (which are supposed to be non-partisan) seem to agree though. As to wheter or not this pans out, I guess we will have to wait and see. My guess is that at worst it won't get much worse. We already pay more thanany other nation in the world for healthcare, and get one of the worst outcomes in the industrialized world.

Realistically though, those being subsidized will increase because employers will structure their payment plans to have the government cover as many people as they can to save themselves money. For example, having people work "part time" at 34 hours a week, etc. With 10%+ unemployment, people will take jobs like this just to have an income. This will balloon costs well beyond what was projected and overload the system. The early costs of this are already straight deficit spending. A 40% tax on "cadillac" health insurance plans? People want to spend extra money to get better healthcare and they are taxed additional money to pay for the healthcare of others who don't want to spend the money? Something about this just doesn't seem right.

The Congressional Budget Office is iffy at best. For example, they said that Medicare would only cost $9 billion total in 2000 and it was at $110 billion+. Plus, the government takeover of student loans to pay for it (borrow money at 2% and sell to students at 6% and pocket the difference for healthcare). There are so many things wrong with the way it was implemented. I'm not saying that there wasn't something that could be done, but what was done in the name of doing something was poorly conceived.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

What's healthcare got to do with net neutrality?

Not to worry, we will all have Medicare-for-All soon enough.

Why? Because noone can answer this question:

As a consumer, what do YOU (private insurance industry) bring as a value-add to my healthcare? What do YOU (private insurance industry) provide for me above and beyond what Medicare provides that justifies the 20-30% price premium over Medicare that you charge?

Noone can answer that question because the answer is NOTHING, not a god damn thing. And the health insurance industry is in a panic because they know, deep down, that the jig is up, everyone knows the emperor has no clothes, and thier business model is about to go extinct.

As a society, the private insurance industry simply has NO VALUE to add. And that goes for ALL insurance, auto, life, health, fire, etc, etc.

The point of insurance is for all who may suffer from X to pool their resources with a premium that is but a tiny fraction of the cost if X actually happens, yet high enough that collectively the pooled resource can cover the costs for all those who X actually occurs too. Protecting everyone potentially effected from the financial ruin and disaster that would befall them if they had to handle X happening all by themselves.

Insurance is one of the most PURELY SOCIALISTIC activities humans can engage in.

Yet it has been twisted into the preverted capitalist profit center it is by a whole bunch of con-men over the centuries since Lloyds invented the concept. Insurance was socialism centuries before the word was invented.

 

[Stiletto]

Why? Because noone can answer this question:

As a consumer, what do YOU (private insurance industry) bring as a value-add to my healthcare? What do YOU (private insurance industry) provide for me above and beyond what Medicare provides that justifies the 20-30% price premium over Medicare that you charge?

Um...how about ability to pay claims promptly, and on-time? Doctors all over the country are turning away people with Medicare, partly because Medicare won't even allow them to break even, and partly because their claims may not be paid for weeks or months. Walgreens around the country are turning away new customers as well if their payment option is Medicare. Social Security, the FDIC, Medicare...all government insurance institutions that are either bankrupt already or two steps away from bankruptcy. The difference between that and the private industry? Companies can go out of business, paving the way for new companies that can do a better job. The government doesn't go out of business. It just keeps getting taxes every year, regardless of the job they do.

 

[Stiletto]

Insurance is one of the most PURELY SOCIALISTIC activities humans can engage in.

Yet it has been twisted into the preverted capitalist profit center it is by a whole bunch of con-men over the centuries since Lloyds invented the concept. Insurance was socialism centuries before the word was invented.

Oh, and the insurance industry is one of the LEAST profitable industries in the private sector. Just like with other fields of business, anti-corporate propagandists talk about huge sums of money as the profits being made, without actually saying what percent of revenues those profits are. In the insurance industry, profits are rarely more than 3% of revenues. Oops, I forgot...business is evil. Profits are evil. Capitalism is evil. Long live the proletariat.

 

[kirbyrj]

Not to mention Medicare being bankrupt, but who's counting.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

What's healthcare got to do with net neutrality?

Not to worry, we will all have Medicare-for-All soon enough.

Why? Because noone can answer this question:

As a consumer, what do YOU (private insurance industry) bring as a value-add to my healthcare? What do YOU (private insurance industry) provide for me above and beyond what Medicare provides that justifies the 20-30% price premium over Medicare that you charge?

I ahve to agree with the others here.

1.) Medicare is driving our contry bankrupt insuring only a small fraction of people. Medicare-for-all would be even less sustainable.

2.) Insurance companies make some of the smallest profits in the business world, as mentioned ~3% on average (and no, this number does not include the AIG fiasco as of late, but is a long term average).

3.) The problem is really that Medical Device, Pharmaceutical and Doctors are overpaid. This is where all the money goes. A commercial company will accept a project if it promises to give them single digit yields, whereas a most medical device companies turn down any project that doesnt lead to at least 30% profit. This is insane. The only reason it works is because in th ecurrent insurance model and in that of medicare, the customer is not the direct payer of the services, so they are likely to not care if a doctor uses a needlessly expensive product on them when there is a just as good cheaper alternative, as they arenot the ones paying.

The corruption within the industry doesnt help either, with medical device and pharmaceutical companies giving kickbacks to doctors who use their more expensive products on patients.

What the medical industry needs is not more government payment, because that won't fix the problem, it will just drive the country bankrupt instead of its citizens. What it instead needs is more regulation to curb these shady practises. Make it a requirement that if a doctor is paid by insurance or by medicare he must use the cheapest of two clinically equivalent products.

Ban any conflict of interest situations. The Department of defense already does this. Why is this not banned across ALL business? It is incredible to me that salesmen are allowed to lure people into contracts for their businesses by giving the individual fancy dinners, major league tickets, lucrative individual consulting contracts or kickbacks. The purchasing/contract individual needs to be making the decision of what is best for their company/shareholders, not the decision that gains them the most personally. The fact that this kind of behavior is allowed anywhere is scandalous. All conflict of interest needs to be banned in all business and society, not just in military and political contracts.

These two changes alone might just stop the corruption and bring medical costs under control without having the government pay for anything!

 

[keenan]

I ahve to agree with the others here.

1.) Medicare is driving our contry bankrupt insuring only a small fraction of people. Medicare-for-all would be even less sustainable.

Continuing with the current broken system, this is probably true. But the rest of the developed world seems to be managing just fine, and paying less per-capita than Americans while insuring a larger part of their populations and having better health outcomes.

2.) Insurance companies make some of the smallest profits in the business world, as mentioned ~3% on average (and no, this number does not include the AIG fiasco as of late, but is a long term average).

Their profit is still huge in absolute $ terms, but profit is irrelevant anyway. All of the cost related to maintaining a private insurance industry is wasted money too, not just the profit, and those costs are astronomical. Just keeping track of exactly who used exactly what services, supplies and what they need to be billed for is a massive cost. Not to mention all of the other infrastructure that could be largely done away with.

3.) The problem is really that Medical Device, Pharmaceutical and Doctors are overpaid. This is where all the money goes. A commercial company will accept a project if it promises to give them single digit yields, whereas a most medical device companies turn down any project that doesnt lead to at least 30% profit. This is insane. The only reason it works is because in th ecurrent insurance model and in that of medicare, the customer is not the direct payer of the services, so they are likely to not care if a doctor uses a needlessly expensive product on them when there is a just as good cheaper alternative, as they arenot the ones paying.

In either the current system or a single-payer system, the insurers have a lot of power to influence this. But of course in the current system, they don't want to, because more $ spent means more $ profit. This is also true on the front-lines as I understand though, with doctors getting perks and kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs and ordering radiology exams and so on. These things go away when there is a single-payer system, though stiff complicated regulation might take care of at least some of it, it's a lot easier to administer when one entity is paying all the bills.

 

[Stiletto]

Continuing with the current broken system, this is probably true. But the rest of the developed world seems to be managing just fine, and paying less per-capita than Americans while insuring a larger part of their populations and having better health outcomes.

Then why do people from so many other nations in the developed world, such as Canada, Britain, and Australia come here for health care? Their taxes are much higher than ours, and rationing is a standard in their systems, hence their travel to our country.

Their profit is still huge in absolute $ terms, but profit is irrelevant anyway. All of the cost related to maintaining a private insurance industry is wasted money too, not just the profit, and those costs are astronomical. Just keeping track of exactly who used exactly what services, supplies and what they need to be billed for is a massive cost. Not to mention all of the other infrastructure that could be largely done away with.

Government historically is a bureaucracy, and it rarely gets better in terms of sheer waste and inefficiency. A private business has profit motives to improve its processes, and cut down on red tape. The government does not. Any claim that government could do it better is utter denial of the nature of the State.

In either the current system or a single-payer system, the insurers have a lot of power to influence this. But of course in the current system, they don't want to, because more $ spent means more $ profit. This is also true on the front-lines as I understand though, with doctors getting perks and kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs and ordering radiology exams and so on. These things go away when there is a single-payer system, though stiff complicated regulation might take care of at least some of it, it's a lot easier to administer when one entity is paying all the bills.

Wait...you're claiming that there would be no corruption in government that would affect the health-care system? What planet are you from?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Wait...you're claiming that there would be no corruption in government that would affect the health-care system? What planet are you from?

Well, government does not have the best track record of limiting corruption, but he does have a point in that a lot of the incentivbes and cowboy environment disappears with a lot of the complexity if one were to move to a single payer system.

That is neither here nor there - though - as a single payer system simply isn't happening in the U.S.

 

[keenan]

Then why do people from so many other nations in the developed world, such as Canada, Britain, and Australia come here for health care? Their taxes are much higher than ours, and rationing is a standard in their systems, hence their travel to our country.

Generally they go there because they want an elective procedure faster than they can get it in their home country. Some of these procedures are things that you'd certainly want to happen as soon as humanly possible, and yes they are 'rationed'. This isn't all that common, and folks are largely happy with their care in these countries. However by the same token, critical procedures are not, and if you are sick you can be sure you will be treated promptly and properly. There are plenty of problems with other systems too, but the basic metrics show better overall outcomes and very similar user satisfaction.

Government historically is a bureaucracy, and it rarely gets better in terms of sheer waste and inefficiency. A private business has profit motives to improve its processes, and cut down on red tape. The government does not. Any claim that government could do it better is utter denial of the nature of the State.

As evidenced by the real world, and not your speculation, eliminating the 'middle man' so-to-speak has huge savings. And it's pretty obvious, managing such a convoluted system of insurance providers, care providers and different patient plans is an obvious nightmare and causes huge inefficencies. Apparently the overhead of bureaucracy is worth it. However you're right, this watered-down, non-single-payer program will probably be even more costly than the current system.

It also makes it much more likely that people will seek treatment early, when their condition can be treated much more cheaply than when it's gotten so bad that they end up in intensive care for months for something that could have been treated effectively with inexpensive drugs or an outpatient procedure. This would take a long time (decades) to show up though.

Wait...you're claiming that there would be no corruption in government that would affect the health-care system? What planet are you from?

No. I'm claiming that the profit motive causes problems that influence the cost of care directly. It's not even corruption, it's their raison d'etre, and nobody thinks twice about this. Again, look at the rest of the world where government-run systems have drugs costing astronomically less, significantly less radiology exams and procedures are carried out, yet health outcomes are better.

I don't understand why so many people insist on ignoring the abundant evidence that suggests it is much cheaper to operate a single-payer system. If there's one argument for single-payer healthcare that everyone should be able to agree with, it's that it will cost less. When you already have the most costly system in the world by a wide margin, I don't see how you can reasonably argue otherwise. If everyone else can do better, look at what they're doing and try to improve on it, because it's obviously better than what you're doing.

 

[Stiletto]

Generally they go there because they want an elective procedure faster than they can get it in their home country. Some of these procedures are things that you'd certainly want to happen as soon as humanly possible, and yes they are 'rationed'. This isn't all that common, and folks are largely happy with their care in these countries. However by the same token, critical procedures are not, and if you are sick you can be sure you will be treated promptly and properly. There are plenty of problems with other systems too, but the basic metrics show better overall outcomes and very similar user satisfaction.

Basic metrics such as what? How many people die every year from inability to get critical, time-sensitive procedures from their single-payer health service? How many are subjected to criminal conditions? When there is no incentive for profit, or for real advancement in your field, there is little motive for workers to attempt to do their job to the best of their abilities, and the customers suffer as a result.

As evidenced by the real world, and not your speculation, eliminating the 'middle man' so-to-speak has huge savings. And it's pretty obvious, managing such a convoluted system of insurance providers, care providers and different patient plans is an obvious nightmare and causes huge inefficencies. Apparently the overhead of bureaucracy is worth it. However you're right, this watered-down, non-single-payer program will probably be even more costly than the current system.

You're painting a single-payer system as the only alternative to the current private health industry architecture. A great deal of that confusion is due to regulations preventing health care providers from selling across state lines. 50 states, with many providers in each state, results in a clusterfuck. Now, if those regulations were lifted, you'd undoubtedly end up with far fewer providers, specifically those who are the most efficient and economical in terms of being able to handle large numbers of clients. However, that would require the government to do a 180 and actually loosen their iron fist.

It also makes it much more likely that people will seek treatment early, when their condition can be treated much more cheaply than when it's gotten so bad that they end up in intensive care for months for something that could have been treated effectively with inexpensive drugs or an outpatient procedure. This would take a long time (decades) to show up though.

Wait...you just admitted that single-payer systems in other countries result in rationing, causing long waits before you can get treatment. What difference will it make if people seek treatment early in a single-payer system if they're still waiting for days, weeks, or months to get it?

No. I'm claiming that the profit motive causes problems that influence the cost of care directly. It's not even corruption, it's their raison d'etre, and nobody thinks twice about this. Again, look at the rest of the world where government-run systems have drugs costing astronomically less, significantly less radiology exams and procedures are carried out, yet health outcomes are better.

People like you are stuck in a mindset where you believe that businesses only worry about maximizing profit, regardless of whether it means they retain their customer base or not. Profits are meaningless to a company unless they can find a balance where their services or products are offered at a price point and quality point that will maximize how many people pay them money. Wondering why drugs cost so much in this country? Ask the FDA, which first requires years of expensive testing of the drugs...and then many of these companies keep testing them anyway because they would rather avoid the costs of lawsuits if a particular side effect becomes epidemic. The legal system is one of the keystones of the high cost of health care. Malpractice cases combined with insane punitive damages are doing a lot more to raise people's premiums than the companies' desire to reach their 3% profit margin. I notice earlier that you said "their profit is still huge". Congratulations. You just admitted that the actual math of business is utterly irrelevant to you. Either you understand that a percentage of profits will be doled out among a gigantic organization, or you don't.

I don't understand why so many people insist on ignoring the abundant evidence that suggests it is much cheaper to operate a single-payer system. If there's one argument for single-payer healthcare that everyone should be able to agree with, it's that it will cost less. When you already have the most costly system in the world by a wide margin, I don't see how you can reasonably argue otherwise. If everyone else can do better, look at what they're doing and try to improve on it, because it's obviously better than what you're doing.

The only evidence to show that single-payer systems cost less is due to the lower quality of the care provided. Countries throughout Europe demonstrate this en masse. We have the most costly system in the world partly because we have the best care in the world, partly because of needless government regulation driving up the costs, and partly because of an out-of-control legal system that allows people with malpractice lawsuits to soak the people paying their premiums every month.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The only evidence to show that single-payer systems cost less is due to the lower quality of the care provided. Countries throughout Europe demonstrate this en masse. We have the most costly system in the world partly because we have the best care in the world, partly because of needless government regulation driving up the costs, and partly because of an out-of-control legal system that allows people with malpractice lawsuits to soak the people paying their premiums every month.

Wrong, we have the absolute worst healthcare in the industrialized world by almost any metric you would choose to measure it by, AND we pay more for our healthcare than anyone else in the world.

 

[Stiletto]

Wrong, we have the absolute worst healthcare in the industrialized world by almost any metric you would choose to measure it by...

Provide some metrics, and Sicko doesn't count. Compare it with our average life span, standard of living, sheer availability of care per citizen, and again, the amount of people who come into this country for medical care.

Also, please provide metrics that don't use the dishonest tactic of calculating in the poor health of citizens who choose to be obese, smoke, drink heavily, and eat crap. Their personal lifestyle decisions have no bearing on the quality of health care.

 

[kac77]

Provide some metrics, and Sicko doesn't count. Compare it with our average life span, standard of living, sheer availability of care per citizen, and again, the amount of people who come into this country for medical care.

Also, please provide metrics that don't use the dishonest tactic of calculating in the poor health of citizens who choose to be obese, smoke, drink heavily, and eat crap. Their personal lifestyle decisions have no bearing on the quality of health care.

It's really not hard to find. There's been so many reports on this you can almost take your pick. NONE of them show us at the top. The UK, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and Japan. You can look at the GAO, USA Today, etc. They all have articles on this. Of the G-7 (Industrialized Nations) we rank last.

 

[kac77]

It's really not hard to find. There's been so many reports on this you can almost take your pick. NONE of them show us at the top. The UK, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and Japan. You can look at the GAO, USA Today, etc. They all have articles on this. Of the G-7 (Industrialized Nations) we rank last.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html

 

[kirbyrj]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html

Quote from your article:

But "it's not as simple as saying we don't have national health insurance," said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. "It's not that easy."

Among the other factors:

• Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly one-third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

 

[Stiletto]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html

From that article:

Among the other factors:

• Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly one-third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

• Racial disparities. Black Americans have an average life expectancy of 73.3 years, five years shorter than white Americans.

advertising

• A relatively high percentage of babies born in the United States die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations. Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe, had lower infant-mortality rates than the United States in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.

First, as I mentioned, the obesity rate in America is utterly irrelevant to the state of health care, because people make their own decisions as to their diet and activity levels regardless of whether they live under privately run health care or government-run health care. It's a fraudulent factor used to bolster the case against private health care. Implement the same diets and sedentary lifestyles overseas and you'd see their numbers dwindle.

Secondly, the racial disparity is important, because the United States has one of the most racially diverse populations in the world. Genetic differences may come into it, poverty may come into it(and the dangerous lifestyles that accompany poverty), but both of these factors are again irrelevant to the quality of health care available to the citizens of the nation. Genetic differences might possibly be overcome, but the political implications of addressing them often get in the way. The poverty issue is also something that can be dealt with, but it's extraneous to the health care debate.

To the third point, I'd like to know what accounts for the high infant death rate. I'd like to think they're not counting abortions into their numbers, but as they seem to be grabbing whatever factors support their argument, regardless of the impact(or lack thereof) that they have on the quality of health care, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Factors for a study in quality of health care should include things like wait times, doctor-to-patient ratios, technology level, equipment availability, hospital-to-population ratios, malpractice numbers, etc. If someone is fat, an alcoholic, or doesn't wear their seatbelt, that's a reflection on their individual health, not on the system available to them. Many people are just too lazy to give a damn about their health. America excels at sloth.

 

[kac77]

From that article:



First, as I mentioned, the obesity rate in America is utterly irrelevant to the state of health care, because people make their own decisions as to their diet and activity levels regardless of whether they live under privately run health care or government-run health care. It's a fraudulent factor used to bolster the case against private health care. Implement the same diets and sedentary lifestyles overseas and you'd see their numbers dwindle.

Secondly, the racial disparity is important, because the United States has one of the most racially diverse populations in the world. Genetic differences may come into it, poverty may come into it(and the dangerous lifestyles that accompany poverty), but both of these factors are again irrelevant to the quality of health care available to the citizens of the nation. Genetic differences might possibly be overcome, but the political implications of addressing them often get in the way. The poverty issue is also something that can be dealt with, but it's extraneous to the health care debate.

To the third point, I'd like to know what accounts for the high infant death rate. I'd like to think they're not counting abortions into their numbers, but as they seem to be grabbing whatever factors support their argument, regardless of the impact(or lack thereof) that they have on the quality of health care, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Factors for a study in quality of health care should include things like wait times, doctor-to-patient ratios, technology level, equipment availability, hospital-to-population ratios, malpractice numbers, etc. If someone is fat, an alcoholic, or doesn't wear their seatbelt, that's a reflection on their individual health, not on the system available to them. Many people are just too lazy to give a damn about their health. America excels at sloth.

You're looking for evidence that supports your point of view amongst the sea of numbers that don't validate your viewpoint. That was just one article out of many and they all said the same thing. It's not like intentionally left out stuff. I took the first 10 links in Google.

It really doesn't matter what statistic you take. Hospitals? We likely have more. Abortions? Our numbers are comparable to thiers give or take %1. Alcohol? Germany drinks us under the table. Now obesity you could look at that as a factor. However there are studies which just take a look at common injuries and their success rates vs the money spent and we don't rank that high in that regard either.

Capitalism is about maximizing profit above all else. That has side effects. In terms of healthcare the side effect is higher prices and lower levels of service dictated by the consumer's capital. Profits and quality of services delivered are mutually exclusive when the market you are competing in has a lower level of expectation compared with environments outside the home market.

 

[Stiletto]

You're looking for evidence that supports your point of view amongst the sea of numbers that don't validate your viewpoint. That was just one article out of many and they all said the same thing. It's not like intentionally left out stuff. I took the first 10 links in Google.

Please tell me that last line wasn't what you consider substantiation of the link you posted. I addressed what was in the article. Just because an organization creates a set of numbers to grade health care does not mean their methodology was sound. It is clear it supports the notion that US health care is subpar to other countries, and it is also clear that there are a number of factors that are either irrelevant to the state of health care. or are represented in such a way that dismisses the major disparities between lifestyles in different countries.

It really doesn't matter what statistic you take. Hospitals? We likely have more. Abortions? Our numbers are comparable to thiers give or take %1. Alcohol? Germany drinks us under the table. Now obesity you could look at that as a factor. However there are studies which just take a look at common injuries and their success rates vs the money spent and we don't rank that high in that regard either.

Again, common injuries may be serious or minimal based on the lifestyle of the person who sustained them. A severely overweight person's twisted ankle would be far more serious than an athletic person's sprain. For the eightieth time: lifestyles are irrelevant to the quality of health care in a given country. If you're going to rate health care, eliminate catalysts created by differences in general health. Otherwise, all you're producing is a set of statistics tailored to support one side of an issue.

Capitalism is about maximizing profit above all else. That has side effects. In terms of healthcare the side effect is higher prices and lower levels of service dictated by the consumer's capital. Profits and quality of services delivered are mutually exclusive when the market you are competing in has a lower level of expectation compared with environments outside the home market.

Explain how the high prices are directly linked to availability of consumer capital when per capita income and standard of living is consistently rising in the United States. The high prices are far more due to overzealous malpractice lawsuit payouts, inability to operate outside of a single state, massive drug R&D costs partly due to FDA regulation, and out of control medical component costs that have little to due with the insurance industry.

If each of these particular problems were addressed individually, the health care crisis would shrink very quickly. Instead, big government bureaucrats have seized the situation as an opportunity to extend government control over the free market, and make millions of people more dependent on social programs.

 

[keenan]

Basic metrics such as what? How many people die every year from inability to get critical, time-sensitive procedures from their single-payer health service? How many are subjected to criminal conditions? When there is no incentive for profit, or for real advancement in your field, there is little motive for workers to attempt to do their job to the best of their abilities, and the customers suffer as a result.

Any metric you choose to name. Go out and find published, peer-reviewed work. It all says the same thing. Whether it's based on a specific type of procedure, or overall metrics like infant mortality, average age of death, or pretty much anything else you care to name, at best America does as well as other countries, while the cost is through the roof in comparison. This is pretty well studied.

It is difficult to isolate the structure of the healthcare system in any scientifically worthwhile manner.

The data show one thing - America pays more and in every study I've seen, doesn't do as well objectively, and subjectively is on par with most other countries.

Personally I think this is largely due to the number of people in America that are uninsured, and that care for middle and upper class Americans is just as good as anywhere else.

You're painting a single-payer system as the only alternative to the current private health industry architecture. A great deal of that confusion is due to regulations preventing health care providers from selling across state lines. 50 states, with many providers in each state, results in a clusterfuck. Now, if those regulations were lifted, you'd undoubtedly end up with far fewer providers, specifically those who are the most efficient and economical in terms of being able to handle large numbers of clients. However, that would require the government to do a 180 and actually loosen their iron fist.

No, I'm saying that not having a single-payer system does away with a lot of the cost benefits that such a system provides. I didn't realize things were even as bad as you describe. What I'm talking about is things like keeping track of every little thing so that the patient can be billed for it. I've worked in American hospitals and there are large departments that basically do just this. Then you have to sort out who's insurance is going to pay, or what government programs are going to fund it. It's a huge amount of paperwork and accounting that you don't need to do if everyone is on the same system. It's not the only way to go, I'm just saying it offers advantages as far as cost is concerned.

Wait...you just admitted that single-payer systems in other countries result in rationing, causing long waits before you can get treatment. What difference will it make if people seek treatment early in a single-payer system if they're still waiting for days, weeks, or months to get it?

Waiting a few weeks for a non-urgent surgery (as you would wait in the USA as well...) isn't a big deal if it gets done while it's not urgent. Five or ten years down the road when your liver fails or whatever and you end up in the ER and critical care, it costs a fortune. There's also no reason that you can't spend more money and reduce wait times... I think if you spent as much money per-capita as you do today, and just put it toward a single-payer system, that you could have one that offers shorter wait lists than most other places.

People like you are stuck in a mindset where you believe that businesses only worry about maximizing profit, regardless of whether it means they retain their customer base or not. Profits are meaningless to a company unless they can find a balance where their services or products are offered at a price point and quality point that will maximize how many people pay them money.

The problem is the disconnect between the user and the person exploiting the system and jacking the rates up. If your doctor tells you to go get a CT scan, you go have the scan. If you're in distress and need to go to the hospital, you go the hospital and get cared for, you're not going to go price shopping for your emergency surgery. They can basically charge whatever they want.

Wondering why drugs cost so much in this country? Ask the FDA, which first requires years of expensive testing of the drugs...and then many of these companies keep testing them anyway because they would rather avoid the costs of lawsuits if a particular side effect becomes epidemic. The legal system is one of the keystones of the high cost of health care.

Malpractice cases combined with insane punitive damages are doing a lot more to raise people's premiums than the companies' desire to reach their 3% profit margin.

This I agree with. Other countries have similar testing requirements, but also have pricing restrictions. It's hard to say if the US is really subsidizing the international market enough that imposing similar restrictions there would make the drug industry less tenable. But currently they are making massive profits. And I absolutely agree about the messed up legal system. That alone is surely a factor in the high cost.

I notice earlier that you said "their profit is still huge". Congratulations. You just admitted that the actual math of business is utterly irrelevant to you. Either you understand that a percentage of profits will be doled out among a gigantic organization, or you don't.

Right, I said it in the context of getting rid of this entire tier of the system. They're middle men. Eliminating them means that their profit, assuming costs stay the same, becomes savings.

The only evidence to show that single-payer systems cost less is due to the lower quality of the care provided. Countries throughout Europe demonstrate this en masse. We have the most costly system in the world partly because we have the best care in the world, partly because of needless government regulation driving up the costs, and partly because of an out-of-control legal system that allows people with malpractice lawsuits to soak the people paying their premiums every month.

Best care in the world? I'd love to see your peer-reivewed source for this one.

You're looking for evidence that supports your point of view amongst the sea of numbers that don't validate your viewpoint. That was just one article out of many and they all said the same thing. It's not like intentionally left out stuff. I took the first 10 links in Google.

Exactly. All the available data points to the conclusions we're making. Stiletto, if you want to argue with these data, please provide your own sources. This is what we have to go on, and the findings are pretty clear. Whether this is due to lifestyle issues (this is, by the way, a major part of healthcare in the first place...) or other factors, these things are virtually impossible to study, and that's why you're asking about them. I prefer to make decisions based on what is known, not speculation.

 

[kirbyrj]

I think even the Republicans would have argued that something needed to be done...the real question is, "Is what was done the right thing to do?"

And my vote is, HELL NO (along with over half of all Americans). What was passed was a travesty, and Democrats as a whole will pay dearly for that for the next 10 years. I'm not saying don't do anything, but in the time of record deficit spending (both from Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the nonsensical liberal spending of Obama), is this really the best thing to do?

 

[[X]]

For all the people talking about Health Care, which you all will soon be helping me pay for, I would like to thank you for hi-jacking this thread. Your endless pontification has given me the time I needed to smoke two packs of filterless cigarettes, eat three Big Mac's, do a few nice blueberry bong hits, and eat some miscellaneous multi-colored pills which I washed down with a smooth pint of finely aged Jack Daniels(my fifth today). Now that I'm done I think I'll go up on my second story roof in a lightning storm, wearing roller skates while holding a broadsword up in the air that I bought after a hard days drinking and eating peasant pastries at the renaissance festival, and use some power tools with the guards removed. Don't worry though, I will be wearing my safety goggles. They're tinted and I don't want the paramedics to see how red my eyes are when they get here. Thank's again for paying for my Health Care. And by the way... Fuck Obama and the Toyota he rode in on. Gov't get your fucking hands outta' my bidness. If Comcast tries to "take over" over the intarwebs, we will take them back. I guaran-fuckin'-tee it. P.S. Obama throws like a girl.