What if health care was like the post office?

RS: yes, it would suck for me (as I'm covered by good corp. group plan). However, if I was among the millions of uninsured, looks PRETTY damn good to me.

I've always had really great experiences with the Post Office. UPS, not so much.

I think it's sad that US employers are stuck with sorting out healthcare ... at least it's expected of them, if not required. What a waste of resources, replicated at each employer.

40% to 30% of Americans already receive there health care from the government in some form (i.e. Medicare, Government plans, VA system) and they don't receive "post office' service.

"40% to 30%" is an unusual figure. Is it declining?

Nope - will be increasing as more of the population crossed that 'magical' age of 65. Most people dont understand that the government already run a 'socialized' medical plan. You just have to be a certain age to take part in it.

..and I was being conservative.. a lot of people would say ~65% is government paid

The comparison is always the post office, not the postal system. Everyone complains about the lines at the post office. How about the bank teller line? Those suck, but you can use the ATM. And at the post office, you can use the APCC. Or you can not go to the post office and buy stamps online. Or use a postal meter and drop it in the mail. Or ship enough and have the mailman stop by and pick up your packages. There's the flat rate box, if it fits, it ships. For a dollar, you can send two first class pieces of mail across the country and still have a few pennies left. For that service, does the postal service really suck? Or is it just the people who want the hand holding personalized approach at the post office are then bitching they have to wait online. ... does that make any sense?

What is actually wrong with the postal service? Have you ever actually not received something sent in the mail? Did you ever mail something and feel ripped off price-wise? Did the mailman ever not show up on a Saturday or a Monday, taking a long weekend? Was the mail ever wet and soggy on a rainy day? Was a postal money order ever rejected by a merchant? Were the Elvis stamps you ordered ever smudged, or the LOVE stamps for your wedding envelopes not sticky? Did the mailman ever kick your dog?

At least USPS shows up when they say they will.

lol @ ar.

OOPS LOL @ alanhart.

if the post office were like health care...

"sorry, your dad sent you a letter and i know that's your home, but i had to through it away as you are not deserving... i know that you work and all, and that you pay to subsidize others (paying fica: those on medicare, paying income taxes: those on medicaid) but sorry again, my system says you are not deserving of receiving your letter. don't forget to tell your dad not to write again please"

EPCC - I'm with you regarding the postal service itself - its cheap and efficient. they've made great strides in recent years with the ATMs, etc. I can't even remember the last time something I sent or was due to receive got lost or damaged, and they are pretty good at getting things through that have imperfect addresses.

that said, I think it was incredibly stupid for him to bring up the comparison, if nothing else for the fact that the postal system runs deficits and gets bailed out simply because they have to keep inefficiencies in place for purely political reasons. for a President who thinks that he will magically ring $650b of inefficiencies out of the system, the postal service shows that the exact opposite will likely happen in a gov't run health system. if our congressman can't even muster the political will to eliminate post offices that serve 100 people, how will they ever say 'no' to any constituency with a sob story of how they need every expensive, if dubiously effective or necessary, treatment under the sun?

"The comparison is always the post office, not the postal system. Everyone complains about the lines at the post office. How about the bank teller line?"

Longest I've waited in a bank line... maybe 5 minutes. Longest in a post office line... over an hour NOT counting tax return days.

> And at the post office, you can use the APCC.

I like APCCs, but I find the broken rate to be about 25%. And I can't tell you how many locations have just ONE, versus banks, which usually have multiple, and are, what 30 feet from other banks?

> Or use a postal meter and drop it in the mail.

I looked into postal meters, real pain in the ass. But can't tell you how many times I've had things returned for beinng over 16 ounces, not allowed in mailbox.

> What is actually wrong with the postal service? Have you ever actually not received something sent
> in the mail?

Yes

You also asked about having to wait on line. Well, I don't WANT to wait on line, but sometimes you have to pick up a package. Even after you fill out the form correctly for leaving the package (it didn't require signature) and they never follow those directions.

So you HAVE to go pick it up.

> Did the mailman ever not show up on a Saturday or a Monday,
> taking a long weekend? Was the mail ever wet and soggy on a rainy day?

Actually, my mailman used to sleep in the mail area regularly. There are 30 apartments in the building, and I literally NEVER saw him take less than an hour or two to "finish his work".

It took 3 years of complaints (yes 3) and he was finally replaced... though not sure if he was actually fired.

In another building, I had a mailman who left ALL the mail (like 5-10 pounds) for the building next door on top of our mailbox at least 3x. And he routinely left all the mailboxes in our building open (with his master key).

Now, mail is one thing... do you really want the place you need to save your life to be run this way?

And commerce bank is open sundays!

i have never had any of the experiences you claim to have had with the post office--
and i have waited waaay more than 5 minutes when i need to "work" with a teller at citi--if i need an officer, forget it--and the phone?--unplug it

my insurance company?? a complete waste of time attempting to deal--i have switched to a 3000 deducitble per family member policy so I dont have to deal with them--hopefully no one gets sick--if there is real money at stake i'll have to figh t for it and it will be beyond miserable

since 2000 health insurers profit have increased 4 fold--our premiums have increased 3 fold
appx 3/4 of all bankruptcies are realated to health costs..of those bankrupptcies 3/4 HAD INSURANCE

my maill service is impeccable--my insurance makes a very good business out of NOT paying for my healthcare

> i have never had any of the experiences you claim to have had with the post office--

Don't just take my word for it... curbed posted some videos on the post office 6 months back. Utterly reprehensible stuff. I happened to be a frequent PO user a few years back, so I've probably spent more time in POs than most.

Unfortunately, bad banks, you can get rid of, people just won't go. USPS, that never dies. And those people still probably work there.

> my insurance company?? a complete waste of time attempting to deal--

I agree that insurance companies suck... but thats partially because the government is already involved. So I don't think that helps make the case. The amount of just stupid, stupid legistation involved is insane.

If the government started helping Americans with their health care, we'd end up like Canada and England, where everyone lives in constant pain, bleeding from open wounds, and life expectancy is around 37.

If health care was not broken, you could say "don't fix it". However, it is broken. The burden on the average person for their health care is obscene. Its also pathetic that it should be such a cluster fuck for the unemployed to scramble and pay $2k/month for Cobra. There is no debating that health care works. You can criticize the alternative being proposed all you want, but there are as many criticisms and more for our current system.

Yes, pjc is right -- but left out the bad teeth and broken hips waiting for replacement surgery in England, and as for Canada, just look at Terence & Phillip ... I don't want to wind up like them.

"When you ask me that question, I am gonna revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question--on what planet do you spend most of your time? You want me to answer the question? Yes and you stand there with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase healthcare to the Nazis. My answer to you is, as I said before--it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

Referring to the ilk of Riversider and his wingnuts

I'll post on our personal experiences in UK & Canada later. Suffice it to say that for the uninsured, under-insured or those in financial difficulty due to med. bills - either alternative would be far better than what we have now.

Health care here is like everything else. It works awesome if you have money. Health care, schooling, everything. I think what some people miss is that the growing disparity here is out of control, and its frankly destabilizing over the long term. You can't have all these uneducated people making $40k, paying no taxes, and being supported by the wealthy and digging ditches forever.

we certainly can't get rid of the banks...they're too big to fail...and the subsidies paid to restore their solvency would pay for a whole lotta healthcare

current system is a huge pork barrel designed to enrich few in the process of denying healthcare to many--the scum that benefit from this huge con will fight tooth and nail to protect their spoils--

death panels--post office--what crap we buy into as they get richer

We shouldn't have let anything get too big to fail. Its a joke. Sure I liked Reagan when I was 8, but now I understand the problems of what he and Greenspan set into motion. Nothing regulates itself. Even Greenspan himself admits it now. U bottom you can apply your whole comment to finance industry as well. This coming from someone who is in it.

Rhino you've got it exactly wrong. The burden on the average person for their health care is much too low. typical company you pay maybe 20% of the premium, and some co-pays, and/or deductibles/co-insurance. the amount you pay for towards the cost of an extra test/procedure/visit to a specialist is well below the actual cost, which is why people over-use it. same thing for medicare with its 20% co-insurance.

to stay with the example, assume the actual cost to send a 1st class letter is 44 cents. imagine you only had to pay 20% of the cost - 9 cents. would people send the same/more/fewer letters? what would that do to lines at the PO?

there are certainly many problems w/our current system that need reforming, and to make it easier and more affordable for individuals to purchase insurance outside of the employer-based system, but the key is to make people aware of the costs and incentivized to utilize it more efficiently. americans are pretty smart shoppers, give them the tools and you'll see the cost curve bend downwards.

printer are you refering to the same smart shopping americans who took out all those o down no interest mortgages with escalating ARMs and massive refi fees? or are you referring to the smart shopping americans who elected George W Bush twice?

petrfitz, you're missing the point. 0% down mortgages are take-it-now-pay-for-it-later schemes. Forcing people to pony up for the real cost of their healthcare will dissuade that kind of behavior.

actually, very similar situation, yes. when you put no money down for a house, you are paying with other people's money, which makes you very dis-incentivized (if that's even a word) to shop smartly. just like healthcare. thanks for proving my point.

and yes, unlike you I proudly believe that most Americans are smart enough to act in their own best interests. We don't need a nanny state telling us what to do. in the end, who was smarter - the guy who put down no money, had a free option on house price escalation for a few years, and is now probably renting that same place for 1/3 the out of pocket that he had before the default, or all those brilliant PHDs at FNM, FRE, and BS who financed those purchases to begin with?

we arent ponying up for healthcare--were ponying up to enrich insurance company executives and other pork consuming cronies--the money spent on care is pathetically tiny compare to that ponied up--that needs to be fixed

Wow this is funny above you, Ubottom... four ignored comments. Lets browse. So printer thinks I am exactly wrong. That's all I need to see of that. Petrfitz went after printer, not bad.

I wouldn't doubt that people should pay a little more at point of service, unless its for preventative care. The bigger problem then peoples tendency to overconsume what they dont pay for at the margin is simply what health care costs relative to what people earn, and the fact they lose it when they lose their job or dont have it to begin with. Put the economics book away, it didnt work.

Rhino, which is why there's a field of health economics (read Sherry Glied's stuff - she's great). There's also a major disconnect with what health care costs and what people think it should cost. It's often cited that we pay 16-17% of GDP on healthcare. It's never satisfactorily explained why this is necessarily a bad thing. As we get older and technology develops, it should cost more to keep us in shape, but it is very difficult convincing laypeople of that reality. Btw, it's preventive care (not preventative) - sorry, just a pet peeve.

"I'll post on our personal experiences in UK & Canada later. Suffice it to say that for the uninsured, under-insured or those in financial difficulty due to med. bills - either alternative would be far better than what we have now."

Having a sibling who uses one of those very systems, the alternative for those with good us coverage, the alternative sucks - she comes here for a lot of her care.

Britain has a lousy system, Francis is better.

But lets not confuse covering the uninsured (absolutely a good thing) with changing things for folks who have coverage. Dollars can connect the two, but one doesn't excuse the other IMHO.

"If health care was not broken, you could say "don't fix it". However, it is broken. The burden on the average person for their health care is obscene. Its also pathetic that it should be such a cluster fuck for the unemployed to scramble and pay $2k/month for Cobra. There is no debating that health care works. You can criticize the alternative being proposed all you want, but there are as many criticisms and more for our current system. "

It is broken. Absolutely. But that doesn't make an incorrect fix a good one. I think government is already the problem in healthcare, we don't need more of it.

Any "fix" needs to be debated. Something isn't better just because its something else.

"It's often cited that we pay 16-17% of GDP on healthcare. It's never satisfactorily explained why this is necessarily a bad thing"

To your satisfaction, perhaps. And the number goes to 21% in the current proposals. Which is utterly wack IMHO. And, in my estimation, its worse than that, because the multiplier on HC dollars is not high (versus spending on lets say manufacturing or industries that beget other growth). So much of it is simply wasteful spending.

Folks can make value judgements all they want, but that to me is waaaay too much for care that is not shown to be good... and every dollar spent there is a dollar not spent elsewhere.

> As we get older and technology develops, it should cost more to keep us in shape

So healthcare is the magical field in which as technology develops, it gets more expensive? Wow.

This is exactly why I want the government out of healthcare.

to further bjw's point, an important reason we spend more on health care than do other western countries is that we subsidize the technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone. we pay more for prescription drugs than they do, which allows the pharma and biotech companies to spend on R&D. Ditto for cutting edge medical devices and surgeries. a new procedure or drug that the UK might find cost ineffective now, comes down in price as it becomes more widespread, and then they'll start to allow it.
someone has to pay for the advances, but the europeans/canadians are happy to leech off of us. they do it for defense and trade, this is no different.

Steve Forbes actually had a great healthcare idea, which he uses at Forbes.

Give folks high deductible policies, and then help them with health savings accounts. I don't remember all the details offhand, but he did a fairly thorough review in teh magazine.

Its utterly moronic that we currenty have a system which does not incent people to stay healthy and take care of things... and the current "fixes" don't address that.

We have a system in which things like that work - like the doctor who offered "all in" coverage that people dug and kept them healthy - was SHUT DOWN by the government for acting too much like insurance (except it worked, so thats not like insurance).

You really think the government caused the problem in healthcare? Did the government cause the problem with the finance industry, too? Yes, if you call allowing things that should not, to self regulate...then I guess government "caused" it by doing nothing. There are basically too many people at the bottom of the totum pole getting effed. Its a disgrace the number of people left out of health care...and the number of people left out of the education system. Obama's win is a referendum of such. Health care and finance, income disparity, education disparity...its all what was set into motion by Reagan and what has gotten out of control.

xenophobe alert

Like most of Forbes ideas, that is regressive. How is a poor son of a bitch supposed to set aside money for an FSA.

"Something isn't better just because its something else."

No, but something is better if it's better someplace else, and is so universal that you can't say "yeah, but they're different"

Human bodies are the same set of generic parts here and in France. In France, a nation of complainers and French-haters, they're delighted with their healthcare system. In Switzerland, which has what we seem to be heading for (at best), they're very satisfied with their system. In Canada, they're happy with a their system. In the UK, American investment banker expat friends of mine say that for any serious problem, they would only go to an NHS hospital, never a private one.

We can choose any one of these very different systems, but to stick with what we currently have for more than one more year is just crazy. The same bad input yielding the same bad output, but with an exponential increase in cost.

> You really think the government caused the problem in healthcare?

Yes

> Did the government cause the problem with the finance industry, too?

No (but they actually had the power to stop with the old regulation, and just didn't.)

> Yes, if you call allowing things that should not, to self regulate...then I guess
> government "caused" it by doing nothing.

Except this is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. You are comparing almost perfect opposite analogies here.

The failures in the current healthcare system aren't because the government didn't do anything, its because of the stupidity it has DONE.

nyc - you wrote 'So healthcare is the magical field in which as technology develops, it gets more expensive? Wow.'

that's not how it works - specific technologies in healthcare also decrease in cost, as in consumer electronics. but as more technology is developed, there is more to use. think of your cellphone. 2yrs ago it was $60/month for voice only. now you get an iphone (which itself has decreased from $399 to $99), but pay $100/month because of the data plan. the technology developed, and became less expensive, but you are spending more, because you are getting more.

"There are basically too many people at the bottom of the totum pole getting effed. Its a disgrace the number of people left out of health care..."

Agreed. But while government can "fix" it by mandating it, it doesn't change their RESPONSIBILITY for it in the first place. They are very responsible for why its unafforable in the first place!

Sure, you can "fix" it by buying everyone coverage. But its their fault we have a lousy deal in the first place!

Humor me. Tell me why the government is responsible for health care being so expensive.

> and the number of people left out of the education system

I wasn't aware that children were being turned away from school.

And, if Obama wants to fix education here, he'll have to undo everything the democrats did in NYC. You think he's going to fight the labor unions and the currupt assemblymen who got him elected?

If he did that, I'd give him absolute props.

But his party is at the center of that mess.

Which party is at the center of the mess that started in 1980..disliked around the world, with income disparity through the roof and a financial system that basically pumped and dumped the global economy?

> think of your cellphone. 2yrs ago it was $60/month for voice only. now you get an iphone (which
> itself has decreased from $399 to $99), but pay $100/month because of the data plan

And then you turn off your home phone, which it replaces. And your music player. And, for some, your computer.

If you got me a doctor who cost more but did the job of 5 for less, I'd take it!

> because you are getting more

You're saying we're really getting more? Studies show we're actually flopping.

"people left out of the education system"

Left out of the type of education that actually prepares you do earn a living wage. You know the squeezed middle class (not the $300k earners in Manhattan :), the ones that struggle to send their kids to college...That typa thing.

> Humor me. Tell me why the government is responsible for health care being so expensive.

Do you have 5 hours?

You really don't know? You don't understand union costs (and work rules) as the fastest growing contributor to costs? Or anything about the ridiculous insurance legislation (like that which I mentioned) which reduces the ability to offer consumer-friendly options?

Or the regulations I couldn't even understand in trying to set up a company health policy (with government pricing mandates that make absolutely no sense).

Or, uh, well, lack of tort reform? (yet government commissions that cap malpractice rates, which has shuttered many firms, leaving us at a place where many doctors CAN'T GET MALPRACTICE insurance). That was a cover story in Crain's, btw.

Third, this is more municipal, but the ridiculous waste in involved in opening or closing facilities (yes, the government has told private facilities they can't open because they will be too much competition for hospitals).

"Left out of the type of education that actually prepares you do earn a living wage. You know the squeezed middle class (not the $300k earners in Manhattan :), the ones that struggle to send their kids to college...That typa thing. "

Oh yeah, I hear you... all the problems from things like social promotion, a system where you can't get rid of lousy teachers, and tenure rules that, uh, are not allowed to look at performance (thanks Sheldon Silver!)

So I guess you mean the... democratic party "type o thing".

Hey, if Obama goes against the powerful unions and corrupt politicians on the left (in this case), then, hey, more power to him... but its his party's mess.

And, more to the point, given how lousy we run the schools, how is that make your case for the government running the hospitals?

"To your satisfaction, perhaps. And the number goes to 21% in the current proposals. Which is utterly wack IMHO. And, in my estimation, its worse than that, because the multiplier on HC dollars is not high (versus spending on lets say manufacturing or industries that beget other growth). So much of it is simply wasteful spending."

You've not advanced the debate an inch - what is inherently bad about 16% GDP going to healthcare? Or 21%? Or 35%? I agree, there's plenty of wasteful spending, and that should be rectified (to a point anyway - no one knows the point at which the cost of fixing it would be more than dollars saved), but that does nothing to explain why healthcare should be x% of GDP.

"So healthcare is the magical field in which as technology develops, it gets more expensive? Wow.
This is exactly why I want the government out of healthcare."

Nonsense - the real problem is that patients and doctors always want the latest and greatest, no matter the excessive cost, even when older technologies are just as efficient and way cheaper. You think the government would make that worse? They'd do just the opposite.

Rhino - here's a couple of reasons why the gov't is responsible:

1) ludicrous tax laws that let businesses, but not individuals, deduct the cost of insurance premiums.
2) state-by-state regulations that in many cases (like NY, NJ and CT) impose minimum coverage requirements on policies that go beyond what many people find necessary. if the only choice for a car in NY were a BMW, way fewer people would own cars.
3) Imposing medicare payments on doctors and hospitals which are below the cost of service, requiring private insurance to pay more to subsidize it.

and there are more

> Which party is at the center of the mess that started in 1980..

I'm not sure what mess you're now talking about, but the current financial mess goes back to Clinton signing glass-steagal away + bush 2 + barney frank and the sleeping democrats sorta missing the fannie boat. Plenty of blame to go around (and I'd actually say more dem fingerprinters, especially with barney frank's quotes) And, as I said before, the govertment had the regulatory power to stop all of these things, and just didn't.

Again, again, how exactly does this support letting the government run something ELSE?

So we should have been less involved in health care, but more involved in finance? I don't think the reform is designed for the government to run the hospitals. The recurring theme here seems to me that those in this country for whom the system works well (the well off), seem to consistently favor having the government do less...Except in the one case (finance industry) where the government did less, and failed miserably and they are forced to admit that.

I'd jump in with Rhino and alanhart, but they seem to have it covered. So many of the other arguments just boil down to one of two ideas. (1) I have good coverage and it's too bad that tens of millions don't, but it's not my problem and if the government wants to fix it they can go ahead as long as I don't have to change what I have or pay for what others get. (2) Anything not invented in America is by definition unsuitable for America. Great. While you're showing the rest of the world the way on health care, why not give all those ignorant bastards a few lessons in other areas where America leads the world, like maybe military adventurism, fiscal irresponsibility and greenhouse gas emissions.

"Nonsense - the real problem is that patients and doctors always want the latest and greatest, no matter the excessive cost, even when older technologies are just as efficient and way cheaper. You think the government would make that worse? They'd do just the opposite."

All evidence - including in healthcare - to the contrary. What the government touches doesn't get more efficient nor does it get way cheaper. You get the opposite.

You're saying we're really getting more? Studies show we're actually flopping.

so your belief is that there haven't been any advances in medical care over the past 10, 20, 50, 100 yrs? the survival rates from cancer and heart disease haven't improved? lifespans haven't increased? advances in artificial joints haven't had a significant improvement in quality of life?

> So we should have been less involved in health care, but more involved in finance? I

Less involved in HC in the places gov is involved (though I'm not against gov pushing for coverage at the lower end, just not doing the servicing itself.

In terms of finance, I don't know what you mean by "more involved", but we had the regulation to stop much of the stupidity, and gov folks were just asleep at the wheel (or being paid off by countrywide).

NYC10022 you are being completely dishonest blaming clinton for the repeal of Glass Steagal. It was a Republican congress who wrote and passed that legislation in a veto proof manner. Again republicans not willing to take credit for their own work and trying to blame others for the disasterous results.

Well put, sidelinesitter.

"I have good coverage and it's too bad that tens of millions don't, but it's not my problem and if the government wants to fix it they can go ahead as long as I don't have to change what I have or pay for what others get."

Nothing like a good strawman to start the day.

If there are good ideas to be had, lets here 'em. But how lousy a case must you have if you refuse to hear the other side.

"why not give all those ignorant bastards a few lessons in other areas where America leads the world, like maybe military adventurism, fiscal irresponsibility and greenhouse gas emissions."

or charity, or saving Europe from the Nazis (which they seem to have forgotten already), or the lion's share of industrial development.

I'm personally a fan of borrowing anything that works, but pretending we're a country that didn't do anything and just "inherited" its wealth and power... thats just wacky.

"All evidence - including in healthcare - to the contrary. What the government touches doesn't get more efficient nor does it get way cheaper. You get the opposite."

That's just untrue - how can it get more expensive that using the most expensive medical technology and treatments? Medicare is not perfect, but it's really run quite well relative to the mess in the private market. You come off as a pretty clear old-school partisan Republican here - this is exactly the stuff they've chanted for years (to great effect, unfortunately). No, we don't need a single-payer, 100% government-run system, but to say government poisons healthcare at every turn is disingenuous at best.

> Well put, sidelinesitter.

I guess this is why we elect such bad leaders.

Soundbites and strawmen get the attention, and we elect morons because Americans won't actually look at the facts around the issue.

Its pretty shameful that there can't be honest discussion on topics this important.

nyc10022, what sidelinesitter is pointing out is that all of you people screaming about how government is going to wreck the health care system, seem to enjoy healthcare coverage (in some cases, healthcare coverage FROM THE GOVERNMENT). If you were unemployed, or worked for a company that provided no coverage, you would sing a different tune. But you don't, so you think, screw everyone else who's not covered.

Secondly, why would government inherently screw this up, when FOREIGN governments (oooh scary) are doing a (reasonably) decent job of this in their countries. Is our government more incompetent than France's government.

What is your argument except selfishness, and putting on blinders to what's going on in other developed countries? It will cost more? Well maybe for you and that's where selfishness comes into the picture.

"That's just untrue - how can it get more expensive that using the most expensive medical technology and treatments?"

Simple... give those treatments to a larger share (gov has nothing to do with unnecessary treatment, right? nothing in the way of tort reform, no?).

nyc, that's exactly what's being done already. Unless you mean, we should start covering people living in other countries.

"saving Europe from the Nazi's"? While that is admittedly great, that happened 65 years ago. Since then, Western European countries have instituted universal health care coverage, and we have turned into a plutocracy where the rich get richer, and the poor are denied basic services.

Maybe it's time we looked at what those ungrateful Europeans have been up to since we "saved" them from the Nazi's.

"You come off as a pretty clear old-school partisan Republican here - this is exactly the stuff they've chanted for years (to great effect, unfortunately). "

Really? Republicans have chanted "health care for all"? And noted openness for a hybrid system?

WOW.

It is so sad how the left refuses to debate, instead moving to strawmen and playing off the ignorance of their own party.

"nyc10022, what sidelinesitter is pointing out is that all of you people screaming about how government is going to wreck the health care system, seem to enjoy healthcare coverage (in some cases, healthcare coverage FROM THE GOVERNMENT). If you were unemployed, or worked for a company that provided no coverage, you would sing a different tune. But you don't, so you think, screw everyone else who's not covered."

no, pjc, you are simply wrong. You and sideline sitter have my position 98% wrong.
Not to mention, I've been uninsured AND I worked for a coompany without HI AND I've started company plans myself.

Its 100x sadder though that you just can't tell the difference.

Debate is good.

But a bunch of folks who are just playing off ignorance and not actually listening is NOT.

"Maybe it's time we looked at what those ungrateful Europeans have been up to since we "saved" them from the Nazi's."

Falling further and futher behind the US, China, and India as world powers. I'm amazed they still let France in the G8.

"Maybe it's time we looked at what those ungrateful Europeans have been up to since we "saved" them from the Nazi's."

Definitely, as well as those ungrateful colonists who were "saved" from the British by the French.

> nyc, that's exactly what's being done already.

So, 100% of people get the most expensive treatment for everything?

Wow, when did I get a triple bypass and lobotomy?

Seriously, now.

pjc - most of us aren't saying that the status quo is acceptable, but that the solutions on the table will make things worse, not better. in fact, that has explicitly been stated here. sidelinesitter and now you are just putting words in other people's mouths, which doesn't advance the debate.

> Definitely, as well as those ungrateful colonists who were "saved" from the British by the French.

Yes, so ungrateful we saved their butts several times since.

And if you're calling the US ungrateful (vs. France).

WOW.

Time for a history lesson.

Ever been to France? It's pretty nice there!

By contrast your "world powers" China and India are polluted, with such disparities of wealth as to make even Republicans ill. Well maybe not, Republicans would probably love it. Let the poor suffer, as long as I got mine.

I guess you wish we were less like France and more like world powers India or China?

In one or two sentences, explain your opposition to a system where 100% of citizens are covered by health insurance, whether single-payer or hybrid. As compared to the great system we have now. Thanks.

"pjc - most of us aren't saying that the status quo is acceptable, but that the solutions on the table will make things worse, not better. in fact, that has explicitly been stated here. sidelinesitter and now you are just putting words in other people's mouths, which doesn't advance the debate."

Exactly. Incredibly sad for how much ignorance is out there.

Yes, there are morons on the far right (and far left, too). But waaaaaay too much democratic politics in the last few decades has been a game of "let me tell you what the other side things, and then I'll debate it".

Obama - who I do like generally - also happens to be a master of that. "THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU..." It certainly works for speeches, but it stifles true debate and lets the morons on the extrems frame it.

Pretending everyone that doesn't agree 100% with you is all the way on the other side is moronic and counterproductive. And, imho, that is what has sidelinesitter and bjw have done here.

> I guess you wish we were less like France and more like world powers India or China?

Another strawman? Come on, lets go for 3.

No, France has better services and quality of life, for sure (and a hybrid system). But they're having less and less ability to pay for it. It it were sustainable great. Good for them (but I'll take the opportunity for greater wealth, personally, with some balance). But they're having trouble doing that.

The interesting factor is that European governments are shifting economically to the right now.

"And noted openness for a hybrid system?"
"This is exactly why I want the government out of healthcare."

nyc, your statements are very confusing.

"So, 100% of people get the most expensive treatment for everything?
Wow, when did I get a triple bypass and lobotomy?"

You accuse others of using strawmen, but you're the one doing it. I didn't know that you needed a lobotomy (hilarious), but clearly I meant for medically justifiable treatment, the expensive route is usually taken. Hospitals buy the latest models when the last one works fine, doctors do way too much testing, patients will opt for the latest high-tech treatments - it happens at all levels.

"In one or two sentences, explain your opposition to a system where 100% of citizens are covered by health insurance, whether single-payer or hybrid."

ROTFL. This is the funniest part... I've said it several times ON THIS THREAD... I'm not opposed to 100% coverage.

And this guy is screaming at me telling me what I think, and he has no clue!

See, I tell you, this is the ignorance that screws us all.

If you want real debate, stop with the ridiculous strawmen.

"And if you're calling the US ungrateful (vs. France)."

Previous generations no, current generations absolutely. Your condescension knows no bounds.

death panels medical care like postal care rush palin

misinform obfuscate appoint non-sensical moron spokespeople perpetuate status quo pork feeding

while our nation's health care is a painful embarassment

"Pretending everyone that doesn't agree 100% with you is all the way on the other side is moronic and counterproductive."

Untrue, as I've in fact agreed with you on several points re: healthcare. There's a lot to fix, but removing government from the equation is not an idea I would support.

"No, France has better services and quality of life, for sure (and a hybrid system). But they're having less and less ability to pay for it. It it were sustainable great. Good for them (but I'll take the opportunity for greater wealth, personally, with some balance). But they're having trouble doing that."

True - and France's private insurance industry is taking off. Michael Moore's portrayal in Sicko was disturbingly one-sided about this.

nyc10022 - sorry for the so-called strawmen, but I am having trouble following your "arguments" against a system where 100% of the citizens have some kind of health care coverage.

From what I see, you are not advancing many arguments, you are mostly complaining about strawmen and bringing up irrelevant points, such as how we saved Europe from Nazi's.

ignorant middle class republicans dance as they are directed--very sad

"Nothing like a good strawman to start the day." Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated.

"If there are good ideas to be had, lets here 'em." OK. Universal coverage; single-payer system; blow up the administrative burden, incompetence and profit margin of the health insurance industry; tort reform with teeth to drive down cost of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive overtreatment; hard line with Big Pharma on drug prices; all the Atul Gawande conflict of interest stuff about doctors not investing in hospitals and diagnostic clinics. I don't know whether this is the Canadian, Swiss or Australian system, some other system or no other system, but it would be much better from a societal standpoint than the current US system. Totally infeasible, of course. To many special interest oxen gored to have any chance in Washington. For example, the idea of the Democrats even mouthing the words "tort reform" is comical.

> You accuse others of using strawmen, but you're the one doing it.

After a year now, I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. This isn't a strawman argument; you said it. Nothing was attributed to you, so there can be no strawman. I copied exactly what you wrote and responded to it. You might not like the response, but that doesn't make it a strawman.

> I didn't know that you needed a lobotomy (hilarious), but clearly I meant for medically justifiable
> treatment, the expensive route is usually taken.

And the expensive route is taken for non-medically justifiable as well.
If you think it can't get worse... well somehow it manages to get worse each year.

> doctors do way too much testing

And that has nothing to do with malpractice and tort reform (two issues with gov front and center).

> patients will opt for the latest high-tech treatments

When incented to do so.

When the government restricts the plans that can fix those incentives... yes, ABSOLUTELY the government is making it worse.

> ignorant middle class republicans dance as they are directed--very sad

Except all the dancing on this thread is coming from Democrats!

Ironic... perhaps the democrats should check their own ignorance first before going after others'.

> From what I see, you are not advancing many arguments, you are mostly complaining about strawmen and
> bringing up irrelevant points, such as how we saved Europe from Nazi's.

Ironic... you complain about my confronting of bs arguments, but not a word about the BS arguments themselves.

Sorry, but its that ignorance that makes things worse for all.

bjw
'Hospitals buy the latest models when the last one works fine, doctors do way too much testing, patients will opt for the latest high-tech treatments - it happens at all levels.'

exactly - because they don't pay for it, or even have any idea how much it costs. where else in America do we order something without having any idea how much it costs? the problem is that we don't have health insurance. we have 3rd party payer health care.

"This isn't a strawman argument; you said it. Nothing was attributed to you, so there can be no strawman. I copied exactly what you wrote and responded to it. You might not like the response, but that doesn't make it a strawman."

I'm sorry, where did I write anything like: "100% of people get the most expensive treatment for everything" or that you got a "triple bypass and lobotomy"?

"If you think it can't get worse... well somehow it manages to get worse each year."

You're missing the point - yes, it's getting more expensive, but how would government aggravate the problem? You have yet to show how that would happen.

"When incented to do so."

And when they're not paying enough of the cost upfront, they have no incentive not to do so.

"When the government restricts the plans that can fix those incentives"

Are you saying the government is restricting cost-shifting? It's their job to make sure things don't get out of hand too quickly, but if anything, they've encouraged the shift in the last 20 years or so.

"nyc10022 - sorry for the so-called strawmen, but I am having trouble following your "arguments" against a system where 100% of the citizens have some kind of health care coverage."

And for the fourth time, I'm not against it. It seems like lefties are SO focused on what they think other people are thinking (because some idiot politician told them so) that they won't actually listen when told DIRECTLY.

No wonder we elect idiots.

I have rarely waited more than 3 minutes at the post office. Which post office is everyone talking about?

"Except all the dancing on this thread is coming from Democrats!"

Who's come out and called themselves Democrats here? Not me (independent, the way God made me).

nyc10022, I re-read all your posts, and my conclusion is that (i) you think government is the problem (for unspecified reasons), and (ii) you don't want anything to change for those who already have good access to health care.

If I have understood these "arguments" correctly, then I go back to my prior point that you are among those people who are: (i) selfish, and (ii) willfully blind to the reality that many governments have created health care systems with 100% coverage that CAN and DO work, even our own government has a very popular health care system known as Medicare.

Your statement that the government will screw it up (worse than the current system) is not an argument, it is speculation, or more accurately, dancing like a puppet to the tune played by Republicans and vested monied interests.

bjw - think he was referring to Ubottom, pjc and sideline. it actually doesn't seem that you & nyc are all that far apart.

Did NYC1002 ever own up to his lie that Clinton repealed Glass Steigel? Ishe still blaming the lefties for what the righties actually did?

"Pretending everyone that doesn't agree 100% with you is all the way on the other side is moronic and counterproductive." nyc10022, I love it. This sentence is a precise definition of your SE persona. You have one of the most predictable styles on SE (as unique and recognizable as w67thstreet) - all negative, scorched earth, picking apart other people's posts, rude, hyperbolic. Do you even know how to make an argument FOR something, or is your dial just stuck at against?

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-07-21

"Did NYC1002 ever own up to his lie that Clinton repealed Glass Steigel? Ishe still blaming the lefties for what the righties actually did?"

Haven't read what he wrote, but didn't two Republicans (Phil Gramm was one of them) draft the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Yes, Clinton signed it, but this was a blunder that originated on the right and was approved by a centrist Democrat - there's enough blame to go all around.