MANDATORY health insurance, part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How viable are these systems without the direct and indirect subsidies provided by the American people? Could you spend the % of GDP you now spend on health care if not for the U.S. military providing the bulk of the defense for NATO countries?

I'm not following your logic here. They spend less on healthcare because we provide military defense? How does one follow the other? It would make sense if other countries spent MORE on healthcare because they didn't have to deal with military spending, but to argue that they spend less because of it doesn't make sense to me.
 
It would make sense if other countries spent MORE on healthcare because they didn't have to deal with military spending, but to argue that they spend less because of it doesn't make sense to me.

I think that's what INDY was actually saying. :hmm:
 
^ Apparently, some European countries have this mad crazy Marxist commie system whereby a non-deserving poor person can walk in to some top class hi-faluting hospital with, like, facilities and stuff (built, no doubt, on the Yankee dollar) and actually get treatment for life-threatening diseases without even whipping out a credit card (the free skating socialist bastard!) and, simultaneously, they manage not to spent massive amounts of casheesh on, I dunno, reviving the Cold War, or bombing Russia, or invading Iran, or somesuch.

Devious conniving little commie bastards. How dare they!
 
I'm not following your logic here. They spend less on healthcare because we provide military defense? How does one follow the other? It would make sense if other countries spent MORE on healthcare because they didn't have to deal with military spending, but to argue that they spend less because of it doesn't make sense to me.

They have the money to spend on health care because the U.S. shoulders the largest burden of defense spending. I'm not pounding my chest when I say that but it is true.
They enjoy the advances in medical care because the U.S, system has a profit incentive and therefore an incentive to take a chance on innovation and development.
That's a bit of a simplification but I'm not going to spend this weekend rehashing the fine details of this. The general point stands.

We're off to see U2 in Chicago. Happy 4th.
firecracker.gif
 
They have the money to spend on health care because the U.S. shoulders the largest burden of defense spending. I'm not pounding my chest when I say that but it is true.
They enjoy the advances in medical care because the U.S, system has a profit incentive and therefore an incentive to take a chance on innovation and development.
That's a bit of a simplification but I'm not going to spend this weekend rehashing the fine details of this. The general point stands.[/img]
What exactly is your argument here?

Because the U.S. has decided to continue shouldering the defense burden of the free world post USSR, it shouldn't bother trying to reform a healthcare system rife with inefficiencies? The U.S. is exceptional and a super beacon of freedom and filled with exceptional businesspeople and leaders...only until we get into the nitty-gritty of geopolitics for you to then cry foul that the game is rigged against you?

Sure, the free market allows for pharmaceutical innovation to flourish, but the care provider/patient relationship is not a rational, business-like situation whatsoever.

I'll trot the old tired argument that it's a lot easier to find money to care for your own poor brown people when you're not spending it flattening the brown folks from some impoverished nation overseas. Okay, trotting it back into the barn now. It's put away.
 
Can we cut back our U.S. military spending and see what happens?

If Canada and Europe's healthcare start to fail, tough. But, we'll have more money less debt here in the U.S.
I'm willing to risk the sick people of Europe to try it.


a sorta :wink:
 
What exactly is your argument here?

Because the U.S. has decided to continue shouldering the defense burden of the free world post USSR, it shouldn't bother trying to reform a healthcare system rife with inefficiencies? The U.S. is exceptional and a super beacon of freedom and filled with exceptional businesspeople and leaders...only until we get into the nitty-gritty of geopolitics for you to then cry foul that the game is rigged against you?

Sure, the free market allows for pharmaceutical innovation to flourish, but the care provider/patient relationship is not a rational, business-like situation whatsoever.

I'll trot the old tired argument that it's a lot easier to find money to care for your own poor brown people when you're not spending it flattening the brown folks from some impoverished nation overseas. Okay, trotting it back into the barn now. It's put away.
We may not be good multi-taskers, but we are kicking your ass in foreign policy.
 
They have the money to spend on health care because the U.S. shoulders the largest burden of defense spending. I'm not pounding my chest when I say that but it is true.

Every. single. OECD country spends far less on health care as a % of GDP then we do. The OECD average in 2007 was 8.9%, while the US spent 16%-nearly twice as less! They spend less than we do and get better results.

Here's a fun site:

usgermany.jpg


Note how it looks like the hours and money are ultimately a wash. Here's another:

5895241034_2b3a8fec36.jpg


Of course, national populations are different, and the US is ultimately richer than either country. But the fact is given how much extraordinarily more money the US spends on health care than everyone else, there's no excuse not to be among the best in every health care category. And keep an eye on the inequality between money and quality of health/life span- you'd think with a greater private benefit accruing to each individual in the US, they'd be able to efficiently feed that money into life prolonging treatment that raises overall standards, but we don't see that. It looks like the dread specter of socialism IS an efficient way of handling the health care market.

As Canadiens said, despite the rhetoric about ending corporate welfare, it seems inevitable that conservatives end up viewing the status quo as the best of all worlds. I certainly don't recall ever voting to prop up the rest of the world militarily or in health care, but as long as it makes big businesses happy I suppose its for the best. :shrug:
 
WASHINGTON -- A highly influential panel of medical experts recommended to the U.S. Department of Health on Tuesday that all health insurance plans be legally required to offer free birth control to patients.

The Obama Administration commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel to recommend which preventative health services all insurance plans should fully cover under the Affordable Care Act. In addition to covering birth control, the IOM suggested in its report that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.

"As someone who has worked on women's rights for nearly 30 years, I can say that today's news marks one of the biggest advances for women's health in a generation," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Currently, nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control, and that's why the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries. Making family-planning services available at no cost will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion."

Keenan added she was "confident that the Obama administration will adopt the IOM's science-based recommendation and thus make affordability of contraception a reality for all women."

If the Department of Health and Human Services does adopt the IOM's recommendations, contraceptives could become affordable for women like Lindsay Cox of Lincoln, Neb., who currently can't afford the co-pay on her birth control.

Cox, 23, is a medical student at Nebraska Wesleyan University, and she has no time for a job. Although her parents pay for her BlueCross/BlueShield insurance plan, her birth control costs $40 a month, which is just out of reach on her student budget.

"Luckily my doctor [at the local Planned Parenthood clinic] gives me free samples, otherwise I just wouldn't be able to get it," she told HuffPost in an interview.

Cox said she would have a lot less to worry about if her insurance plan covered birth control.

"Just being able to pick it up regularly and not have to count on samples would be absolutely amazing," she said. "Planned Parenthood is so busy these days that if they're a week off from being able to see you for an appointment, that throws off your cycle and puts you at risk of becoming pregnant," she added.

Access to free or reduced-cost birth control and women's health services has become increasingly difficult for women like Cox as states legislatures across the country have voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

The IOM report notes that almost half of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. It also notes that women who become unexpectedly pregnant are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Moreover, a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost U.S. taxpayers $11.1 billion dollars a year.

Anti-abortion rights and anti-contraception groups are calling for the Obama Administration to reject the IOM's recommendations because they believe that some emergency contraceptives function as "abortion pills."

"This is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost," said Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity. "Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos. The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience."
 
WASHINGTON -- A highly influential panel of medical experts recommended to the U.S. Department of Health on Tuesday that all health insurance plans be legally required to offer free birth control to patients.

What a stroke of genius. Skyrocketing health care costs got you worried? Not to worry, just mandate that "all health insurance plans be legally required to offer free" __fill in the blank__. Problem fixed. Affordable health care for all.

That's why we so need a robust two party political system in this country. It simply would never occur to Republicans that the way to make a good or service more affordable is for the government to mandate that the item just be given away for free.

Why, Obamamotor's Chevy Volt might even sell at that price.
 
What a stroke of genius. Skyrocketing health care costs got you worried? Not to worry, just mandate that "all health insurance plans be legally required to offer free" __fill in the blank__. Problem fixed. Affordable health care for all.

I am sure that babies born to poor women are much cheaper for the government to support than a pack of pills a month.

Fantastic foresight there.

:up:
 
Remember when there were fathers to provide that function? Fantastic foresight making them obsolete.
Classic sidestep of a good point from antiram. Are you admitting a wholly conservative view of the world is only possible when one fails to acknowledge reality?

I'd love for black / hispanic dads to hang around, too, Indy. But as that is not going to change in the short term and requires a monumental shift in each culture, maybe we can keep a couple million kids off the scoreboard from eatin' up your scarce resources, eh?
 
I'd love for black / hispanic dads to hang around, too, Indy. But as that is not going to change in the short term and requires a monumental shift in each culture, maybe we can keep a couple million kids off the scoreboard from eatin' up your scarce resources, eh?


Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.
 
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.


Haha, yeah. Not funny but yeah.

I pledge allegiance to fewer abortions. But no free birth control. I feel a migraine coming on...
 
Could it be that health insurance companies recognize that it is cheaper to provide birth control pills than to pay for child-birth costs?

This strikes me as a business decision rather than an ideologically-driven decision.

I think it's good regardless.
 
Classic sidestep of a good point from antiram. Are you admitting a wholly conservative view of the world is only possible when one fails to acknowledge reality?

??? I was only commenting on the preposterous notion that something of value could be made "free" merely at the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers. The sidestep was from that I'm afraid.

I'd love for black / hispanic dads to hang around, too, Indy. But as that is not going to change in the short term and requires a monumental shift in each culture, maybe we can keep a couple million kids off the scoreboard from eatin' up your scarce resources, eh?

Let it be noted that it was not the conservative poster expressing a worry about "black / Hispanic" females not getting birth control pills leading to the proliferation of "black / Hispanic" children eatin' up scarce resources.
 
Let it be noted that it was not the conservative poster expressing a worry about "black / Hispanic" females not getting birth control pills leading to the proliferation of "black / Hispanic" children eatin' up scarce resources.
I know, I figured we'd just get right to it :up:
 
AP

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says health insurance plans must cover birth control for women with no copays.

The requirement, affecting most insurance plans, is part of a broad expansion of women's preventive coverage. Breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well woman" physical, counseling on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and other services will also be covered at no cost to the patient.

The new benefits won't take effect for at least another year, Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Insurers are expected to pass the cost on to their customers through slightly higher premiums.

The rules issued Monday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius include a provision that would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering birth control coverage.
 
AP

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says health insurance plans must cover birth control for women with no copays.

The requirement, affecting most insurance plans, is part of a broad expansion of women's preventive coverage. Breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well woman" physical, counseling on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and other services will also be covered at no cost to the patient.

So... the government can now tell insurers and providers WHO they must cover, WHAT they must cover or provide and HOW MUCH they may charge for it.

Explain to me again how Obamacare is not a takeover of our health care system.

Insurers are expected to pass the cost on to their customers through slightly higher premiums.

Aaaah yes, beyond the headlines, the fine print. Obama claims he secured "women's preventive coverage" -- we pay for it and have no choice.

Explain to me again how this isn't exactly like a tax with the insurance companies the proxy I.R.S. agents.
 
So... the government can now tell insurers and providers WHO they must cover, WHAT they must cover or provide and HOW MUCH they may charge for it.

Regulated private markets for beginners:

Governments oversee and set the rules for market operations.

Explain to me again how Obamacare is not a takeover of our health care system.

What do you mean by 'our' health system, surely the US system currently is largely private?

Aaaah yes, beyond the headlines, the fine print. Obama claims he secured "women's preventive coverage" -- we pay for it and have no choice.

No, the policyholders collectively pay for it, is my understanding.
 
So... the government can now tell insurers and providers WHO they must cover, WHAT they must cover or provide and HOW MUCH they may charge for it.

Explain to me again how Obamacare is not a takeover of our health care system.
You seriously view a couple regulations as a takeover? Chill out, man.
 
Regulated private markets for beginners:

Governments oversee and set the rules for market operations.

Oversight of markets is one thing, this is more in tune with running a public utility.

What do you mean by 'our' health system, surely the US system currently is largely private?
For now.
No, the policyholders collectively pay for it, is my understanding.
If you're a single male is there a way to opt out of this coverage? There used to be. A free market would provide such a policy.
 
Oversight of markets is one thing, this is more in tune with running a public utility.

I completely disagree, it seems to me roughly in line with regulations that are placed on many industries.

But, actually, when it comes down to it, what exactly is wrong with running a health system as a public utility? Seems to work pretty well in France. You know France, that country in Europe with a world class health system. The one that is consistently placed among the leaders for health care services worldwide.

If you're a single male is there a way to opt out of this coverage? There used to be. A free market would provide such a policy.

Can you give me one example, just one, from the world, from history, from anywhere, of an entirely free market healthcare market that delivers optimal results?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom