Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[John Spartan]

FWIW, I do not think a single payer system is totally required. I think that what we want could be accomplished with heavier regulation of the private industry(to cut down drastically on the level of denied valid claims) and some kind of voucher system for people who have trouble affording health care to be able to purchase private plans. People below a certain income level would get the full amount, people above that amount but below the next level would get it partially subsidized. I think this might work because of the 40 million or so without health insurance, a huge chunk of them choose not to carry health insurance(young people gambling), and they should be forced to buy a plan, set up similar to the federal employee benefit system where you get to pick from a bunch. Structure it similar to Medicare Choice but without the unfunded liabilities.

We also need a federal cap on malpractice lawsuits.

I agree with John Edwards who said that the only way to cover everyone is to mandate that everyone carry coverage.

And we also need to let insurance companies charge unhealthy people more money to buy it. It is unfair to force a company to charge a 500 pound 40 year old non smoking man the same amount as they charge an 150 pound 40 year old non smoking man.

[owsley]

One thing that never gets mentioned or talked about enough is the difference in demographics between the US and european countries. We are so much more overweight than them it is disgusting. That goes a huge way to explaining the differences that Moore lays out. Any universal system that does not punish people for being obese or practicing other bad habits is going to just be wasting everyones money. Why should I have to pay for someones bypass heart surgery (insert diabetes treatment, any number of other things) which they got from being 60 pounds overweight? I am very athletic and healthy, shouldn't I get to pay less for healthcare than some slob? The statistics of obesity in this country are INSANE.

What's even more annoying about Moore's method is that he completely ignores how a freer market would punish the healthcare providers which he claims are using technicalities to avoid paying for care. If you had true choice between providers and one had a track record of jerking people around, do you think they would stay in business very long? Under a universal plan there would be NO choice. It's hard to see how a system like that would keep itself in line. Moore is totally barking up the wrong tree when he talks about whether health services should be tied to profits.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that never gets mentioned or talked about enough is the difference in demographics between the US and european countries. We are so much more overweight than them it is disgusting. That goes a huge way to explaining the differences that Moore lays out. Any universal system that does not punish people for being obese or practicing other bad habits is going to just be wasting everyones money. Why should I have to pay for someones bypass heart surgery (insert diabetes treatment, any number of other things) which they got from being 60 pounds overweight? I am very athletic and healthy, shouldn't I get to pay less for healthcare than some slob? The statistics of obesity in this country are INSANE.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Sicko" actually discusses how doctors in England are given financial incentive for keeping their patients engaged in healthy lifestyles. For example, doctors receive bonuses if they convince patients to quit smoking. I don't know if there are incentive for diet and exercise, but I'm sure there could be. Also, the obesity level is strongly connected to the level of poverty in this country, which might itself be improved by providing universal healthcare.


On an unrelated note, it is remarkable how much higher quality the incidental political debate in this forum is compared with the actual "Politics" forum.

[shakermaker3]

[ QUOTE ]
What's even more annoying about Moore's method is that he completely ignores how a freer market would punish the healthcare providers which he claims are using technicalities to avoid paying for care. If you had true choice between providers and one had a track record of jerking people around, do you think they would stay in business very long? Under a universal plan there would be NO choice. It's hard to see how a system like that would keep itself in line. Moore is totally barking up the wrong tree when he talks about whether health services should be tied to profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with your first part. if you are showing that you are playing an active role in being a healthy person that should be rewarded. however what i quoted i do not agree with. the bottom line is they are there to make a profit. Its not like hey its cheaper at zellers than walmart i will go to ellers. because there still is a profit margin trying to be maxamized by both companies.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]

"Sicko" actually discusses how doctors in England are given financial incentive for keeping their patients engaged in healthy lifestyles. For example, doctors receive bonuses if they convince patients to quit smoking.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better idea is to just charge fat people and smokers more for their healthcare. It's really, really simple. A free market would do this automatically.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the obesity level is strongly connected to the level of poverty in this country, which might itself be improved by providing universal healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is raising everyone's taxes and immediately flushing a large portion of that money down the toilet of what is guaranteed to be a massively inefficient system going to make poor people richer?????

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]

What's even more annoying about Moore's method is that he completely ignores how a freer market would punish the healthcare providers which he claims are using technicalities to avoid paying for care. If you had true choice between providers and one had a track record of jerking people around, do you think they would stay in business very long? Under a universal plan there would be NO choice. It's hard to see how a system like that would keep itself in line. Moore is totally barking up the wrong tree when he talks about whether health services should be tied to profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't use the freer market, more competition argument with regard to our health care system becuase what we basically have in our semi private health care system is an oligarchy. The HMO act passed by Congress in the early 70s helped create this phenomenon, and as a result, we now have the worst of both worlds, a for profit system that is terribly inefficient and bogged down in bureuacracy. The irony of it all is that a single payer system, financed through the federal government, would actually be more efficient and less bureaucratic. Doctors would also find it a lot easier to only have to file a form to ONE payer, the fed government through a regional office, instead of having to hire 3 or 4 people JUST to deal with all the insurance paperwork like they do now.


And people who compare our system to that of Britain's, as I have seen people do, are being disingenuous. In Britain, the National Health Service is both financed and run by the government. In a single payer health care system like the one proposed by Moore and other people, this would not be the case. The system would be financed by federal and possibly state governments, but doctors would not be employed by the state and hospitals would not be state entities like is the case for both in the UK.

I do agree with whoever said that we need to charge unhealthy people more to offset the costs. Health insurance companies charge smokers more for health insurance but they can't really charge an obese person more. That is ridiculous.

[guids]

I just really cant comprehend why people want to pick up the slack for the poor/fat/unhealthy/etc of society, it doesnt make sense to me. You are rewarding people for making poor decisions seems very counter-intuitive to me.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
I just really cant comprehend why people want to pick up the slack for the poor/fat/unhealthy/etc of society, it doesnt make sense to me. You are rewarding people for making poor decisions seems very counter-intuitive to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

obv they are fat. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] it's the smokers who complain about paying more for their health insurance, so of course it would make sense that it's some obese people bitching about the concept of having to pay more for theirs.

[MikeyPatriot]

pokerbobo,

[ QUOTE ]
No, this is not a dumb opinion... every person in the US has a right to purchase healthcare... the best they can afford. Just as rich people can afford better food, homes and clothes... (all considered basic human needs) they can also afford better healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I think there are benefits to both private and public health care. But...you just argued for public health care. Rich people can afford more expensive things like mansions and sports cars and designer clothing. The analogy to health care would be equally lavish and superfluous - Botox, plastic surgery, and liposuction.

[ QUOTE ]
The indians were given reservations, along with other benefits.... I know it really sucked for them, but do you really hink no one would have come here if we didnt? Do you think Hitler would have had moral issues with exterminating them? How about Stalin? Japan has very little realestate.... the indian land would have been a prime target. Therefore, it could be argued that we saved the indian bloodlines from extintion, because if it wasnt us... it would have been someone else. Again, not trying to justify the events, merely point out the other ways it could have turned out. (none of them being good for the indian population)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you justify America's treatment of indigenous by claiming if not us HITLER, STALIN, AND JAPANESE EMPIRES!

Also

Kyleb,

"It's worth noting that I do these things. I'm not heartless, I just think government is both inefficient and corrupt."

Are you making the claim that private companies or foundations are free from inefficiency and/or corruption?

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IE in Sweden someone making about $80k/yr is taxed 45%, max tax is 50%. Here it's 38%/38% at that level. Not *that* gigantic of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
7-12% sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

are these dog percentage points or people percentage points?