Ok. GOP what is your solution to the healthcare crisis in the US? Do nothing?

I agree. There are dozens of different systems all over the world but Americans are so isolated, they tend to think in terms of "either or" when it comes to health care. Sad.

 

When banks were allowed to combine practices that previously were separated between investment banks and commercial banks, a plethora of financial instruments became available to both entities, which allowed lenders to mitigate direct risk while making riskier and riskier loans, which resulted in the rapid expansion of sub prime mortgages, zero down, interest only, balloon payment mortgages, etc. It was all spurred by the elimination of Glass Steagle and the subsequent lack of any new regulations in it's place to protect against what should have been such an obvious likelihood. It was allowed because the people that pushed it through and/or the people they sell out to stood to make a lot of money. They don't care about the domestic economy of the US because they exist on a supranational scale and therefore they can exploit any national economic situation.

Does that make sense to you?

Republicans and Democrats both, some wittingly and some unwittingly, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed us. They did so because the system is corrupt to the core. It starts with the electoral process and the campaign money used to buy both parties and thus gain the positions of influence within both.

 

Once again.... http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/

Falcon sent his report to Frank and other Financial Services Committee members and asked that Fannie and Freddie be required to disclose more about their finances and be subject to tougher oversight. He followed it up with another report in June 2003.

A few months later, the Bush administration said it would try to rein in the enterprises by creating a regulatory authority within the Treasury to oversee them.

The warning signs were compounded by revelations in 2003 and early 2004 that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had misstated earnings by billions of dollars in an effort to meet growth targets.

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’

Frank, who became ranking minority member of the Financial Services Committee in January 2003, says now he doesn’t remember Falcon’s reports.

“I had just taken over as ranking member, all this stuff was very new to me,’’ he said.

Frank tried to tackle Fannie’s and Freddie’s problems from another angle, he said, introducing a predatory lending bill in spring 2004 that would reduce subprime loans. But the legislation did not address the voracious quest for profits or other problems at the mortgage lenders.

“First I thought, ‘OK, if we take care of predatory lending, we won’t have to do quite as much on Fannie and Freddie,’ ’’ he said. “But then it became clear we would have to do something about Fannie and Freddie.’’

So he initially supported a Republican measure in 2005 that would have imposed stricter standards on the lenders. But he voted against it in the full chamber because it did not include funding for affordable housing, he said. The bill passed the House.

When the legislation went to the Senate, Republican support was splintered, and the White House withdrew its backing, saying the bill was not strong enough.

And as I said earlier the biggest culprits where the ratings agencies.

“The financial crisis was caused by deteriorating underwriting standards, almost all of which was done by privately securitized mortgages on Wall Street,’’ said William Wheaton, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Yet the libs only blame Bush for some reason and completely ignore the Democrats role in all of this. Gee......I wonder why?

Also, the fact that you can't comprehend that unanimous votes (with exceptions of holidays and other harmless stuff) are NOT always a good thing...

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

 

Not everyone who goes to a hospital does so because they think they are dying. As for unnecessay rules, well for one, just off the top of my head, there's rules about where to put the coat hooks on the inside of toilet stalls. There are almost certainly more.

You want to fix health care in this country? You can start by not doing any more harm. We have the worst of all possible health care worlds in this country. A system in which government micromanages darnn near everything, pays the actual cost of almost nothing, and, then with a straight face, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es about a crisis that they, themselves, have created

 

The excessive costs of healthcare are in desperate need of regulation.

 

So tell me, where do you find the idea that anyone owes you healthcare in the Constitution??? I owe you NOTHING!!! I look out for my own, that's MY responsibility the same as it is yours to take care of your own. And WHY do you seem the think we owe it to illegals to take care of their medical bills also?? We had the BEST medical system in the world until your beloved Obama screwed it up for everyone. Not the majority will not have the same level of health care we had before and a lot will not have it in the end, the same as now. But you on the left insist on spreading the misery evenly.

 

Oh, of course. Regulations like, if your of little use to society do nothing and let them die, they will anyway. That's what the left is offering us.

 

That a free market approach would be more cost effective than a single payer system.

That doesn't prove that Medicare is more cost efficient than our current system.

I didn't have "one solitary cite". The graph I posted has sources provided that show the correlation between increasing government spending on healthcare and the increased cost of healthcare since 1960.

What claim did I make for which you would like a source?

Your argument was also supported by non-factual speculation that you refuse to prove, as I've already pointed out several times.

The only joke is your blatant misrepresentation of my position.

 

That's simply not accurate. Obama's plan doesn't fix the problems with our health care system, but the system was not the "best in the world" before he came into play. If it were, he wouldn't have had the support to make any changes. We don't even have the best health care system on our continent.

 

What crisis ... I just got out of the hospital after a major procedure and a 4 day stay.
Awesome services, great doctors, great nurses, decent food, excellent care ... Saved My Freaking Life ... Total Cost to me $1,325.69.
They also gave me prescriptions for 5 medicines (3 of which will be regular) ... and the regular meds I will take cost a whopping $3.10 a month.

I think what you are complaining about is the fact you believe I should pay for someone else's care ... because I certainly don't have a problem taking care of mine.

 

I think you're full of crap. There's no way a major procedure and a 4 day stay only cost $1300 to you out of pocket unless you have a "Cadillac" insurance plan that is beyond the reach cost-wise, to the majority of working class Americans.

It cost my wife and I about $4k out of pocket to have our last child a little over a year ago...and that was with decent health insurance.

 

What you think and $0.75 might get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds ... and $1,325.69 is exactly what it cost me.
I don't care what it cost you, as long as I don't have to pay for it ... and if you don't like the price, go somewhere else.

When the only argument you possibly have is to call me a liar ... You Have No Argument.

 

The whole of your position is anecdotal evidence, which is worthless. You have provided no facts to dispute. I am certain you are lying OR have a "Cadillac" insurance plan that is, again, not available to the majority of working class Americans. Please note, for a second time, that my argument was not simply that you are lying.

 

If you need proof ... here is the receipt for just the hospital's part.
Other fees included in my figure were my part of the ambulance service, physician fees, and pharmacy costs.

Like I said before ... What you "think" or what you are "certain of" doesn't amount to a "hill of beans".
The only place you got anywhere near being accurate is when you indicated that my insurance plan is not the same as what the working class has available to them.

I am a small business owner, and don't have a corporation supplementing my insurance costs ... I have to buy my own privately.
If you are going to make the point that I am smart enough to shop around for a plan that ensures I pay what I want in premiums, and get the service I like ... Well Thanks!

If you further want to make the point that I should pay even more to support someone else ... Then you are messed up in the head and have no idea what a product is.
The only crisis is that people think their well-being is the responsibility of their neighbors.

If I have to pay for someone's healthcare, then I should have every right to tell them what to eat, what activities to participate in ... or anything else a freaking dependent would have to ask me for.

 

So I was right, you do have an insurance plan that is not something that is accessible to the majority of working class Americans. Thanks for admitting as much.

I commend you on your productivity as a small business owner. It is very difficult to run a business independently these days as the corporate government does as much as they can to monopolize industry, marginalize competition, and externalize costs for big business to the tax payer. The idea that corporations are "supplementing insurance costs" for workers is inaccurate. The tax payers are subsidizing those insurance costs through tax breaks to the corporations that provide them. Of course, you need to be a large business in order to take advantage of such cost subsidies. The employees that are subjected to such programs have very limited choice, if any, as to which plan to chose, and typically don't have the available disposable income to shop around and buy a plan that is better suited to their needs, as you were able to. Part of the reason private costs for insurance are so high is because the current system of government subsidized corporate employee plans inflates the market.

So, in essence, you are already paying for the healthcare of others through your inflated tax burden based on the loss of revenue associated with government subsidized corporate employee plans.

The rates of bankruptcy caused by health care costs suggest that your assertion that there is no problem is wrong.

Your position is not invalid. I understand how frustrating it is to be looking at increased taxes and/or labor costs in the face of Obamacare, particularly from a small and mid-sized business perspective. Obamacare does not fix the problem and I am not an advocate of socialized medicine implemented on a national scale and controlled by the federal government. To assert that there is no problem simply because you have the financial capacity to meet your own needs is just wrong. There is a very significant problem with the health care system in the US and it is directly related to the corporate employee benefit scheme. It's been allowed to continue because the big businesses that reap HUGE profits off of the system use their disproportionate control of wealth to influence government far more than any small business owner could.

 

I would NOT call that decent health insurance. That is a high deductible high copay/ catastrophic plan. There is nothing wrong with that. You choose that in order to lower premiums, and accept a higher percentage of cost if/when you do need medical services.

 

By decent plan, I meant affordable based on the biweekly cost and it was the only option from her employer. The insurance company paid significantly more than we did. It was a C-section with a 4 day stay.

 

Health costs what it costs and those costs are not going down...they will increase just like everything else increases.

Insurance companies are not evil because they do provide us with options when we don't have the cash to pay the full costs of care.

But insurance companies are also for-profit businesses, with shareholders, and they must earn reasonable profits or close the doors.

The government cannot provide health care any cheaper than what people currently pay. If Americans currently spend $2.5 trillion on health care in the private sector, then American taxpayers will also spend $2.5 trillion with universal health care.

If 50 million more Americans are 'given' health care with Obamacare and they don't pay their fair share, then all other Americans will pay more to make up for the extra costs.

IMO...there are few if any Reps or Dems or anyone for that matter who would not welcome universal health care for all Americans. The root problem however to achieve this is fully funding the government program and so far no one has an answer how to do this...

 

It wasn't the best?? Please tell me who had a better health care system and why THEIR citizens came here to get health care up to and including the PM of Canada. And PLEASE don't tell me Canada has a better health care system, my wife has had to many relatives that have died under their system because of the lack of health care. Whether you like it or not they, as well as all the other socialized medicine countries, have rationed health care and a lot of their citizens are dying because of it.

 

in my insurance plan the most I can pay in a year out of pocket is $2,500, then major medical kicks in and covers the rest. In June our prescriptions are going up to $5.00 per instead of being free (generic) our contribution hours are going up from 120 a month to 135 a month all because of Obama care. And Friends, this is NOT a "Cadillac" plan, it's simply a Union plan that we have had for years. Oh, why is it important that the contribution hours went up?? Simple, after 120 hours the rest of the month went into an hour bank and we could build up to 6 months worth of insurance when we were off work and now it's a 135 hours a month, we usually use it during the winter because construction isn't exactly a steady job situation.

 

Health care costs are inflated because of government subsidies and the corporate employee benefit scheme, abuse in the system, and the general inflation caused by fractional reserve funny money. They very well may not go down but it's not because they are naturally market driven today.

I never said insurance companies are evil.

The problem is basing the whole of the health care system upon paying by/through insurance. There is no attention to cost by the consumer because they aren't paying the full cost at the time of treatment. The insured have no reason to avoid going to the doctor for unnecessary ailments that simply need time to pass so there is significant added use of resources unnecessarily. Also, the need for profit for insurance companies adds another layer of cost to the consumer.

In fact, they can, simply by eliminating the profit middleman of the insurance company. That is, however, not the only benefit to public health care. Ensuring that everyone has access to quality health care will increase the overall standard of living for all, provide and economic boost in productivity, increase the tax base, and promote economic growth.

As I states earlier in this thread and a few times, now, I don't support Obamacare. It's nothing but a convoluted sloppy wet kiss to the insurance lobby and other corporate socialist parasites.

There is a significant amount of money that could be cut from the Federal budget that could be used to balance the budget, reduce the deficit and lower taxes. That being said, I would much prefer private health care be funded, regulated, and administered on the state level. It would provide for a lot of opportunity for competition, differentiation, and small to medium sized business development.

 

The WHO disagrees with you...

We spend the most per capita to get the 38th ranked health care system. Sure, nothing wrong, here.

 

WHO, or the World Health Organization is the arm of the UN whose stated goal is universal healthcare for all. Their " ranking isnt worth the paper on which it is printed. They highly rank life expectancy as a determinant of the effectiveness of a particular healthcare system, when by far the greatest determinant of life expectancy is lifestyle and genetics. There has always been a wide disparity in life expectancy form culture to culture, long before any comprehensive healthcare systems were in place. Additionally, there isnt a standarized method of reporting health outcomes even in the United States, much less in many smaller countries. True measures of a healthcare systems effectiveness are 5 year cancer survival rates, heart disease survival rates etc. The WHO ranking doesnt look at these types of measures even remotely.

 

Cancer and heart disease survival rates are indicative of a health care system intent on profiting off of treatment rather than promoting prevention. Life expectancy is a good measure of the effectiveness of a health care system as is infant mortality rate, both measures in which the Canadian health care system shows to be better than the US.

 

In regards to cancer...Cancer survival rates are THE measure of a healthcare systems effectiveness. Rates of contracting cancer are a reflection on culture and ethnicity. Do not confuse the two. In regards to infant mortality rates, you are looking at two entirely different things. Infant mortality rates are heavily influenced by rates of fertility induced pregnancies that tend to yield multiple births( twins triplets etc), and multiple births lead to much higher infant mortality rates. In regards to comparing the stated numbers , as I said, there are NOT standardized methods of this being reported within a country, much less comparing one countries reporting method to another. Even if we take the stated rates as gospel, the difference is so inifinitesimal that it is well within ANY margin of error. Claims of superiority in this regard is pure unabashed propaganda.

By the way, that same "study" that you reference also claims that Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than the United States. If you believe that, I have some swampland that Id like to sell you.