House Floor Controversy: Die Quickly - CNN Video Coverage

[mheslep]

US [...] - it has no government run option.

Medicaid? Medicare? Veteran's?

What are you trying to do here?

Indeed?

 

[mheslep]

France has a private heath-care system with publicly-funded insurance coverage. They spend less than half of what the US does per-capita, and they are #1 in the world for health-care outcomes. We are #37.

You keep posting that, and I'll keep posting FALSE.

 

[turbo]

How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? Unlike the US model, when French people get sicker and require more care, their coverage actually improves, further reducing co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. What a concept. Seems like those "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" aren't all that stupid, after all. Of course, the average French citizen lives about 3 years longer than the average US citizen. But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687

 

[mheslep]

Republican bills:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3217"

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520"

To provide comprehensive solutions for the health care system of the United States, and for other purposes.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2198.cfm"

 

[Choronzon]

How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? Unlike the US model, when French people get sicker and require more care, their coverage actually improves, further reducing co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. What a concept. Seems like those "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" aren't all that stupid, after all. Of course, the average French citizen lives about 3 years longer than the average US citizen. But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687

Just more of the same—it points out all sorts of problems with French health care, including the fact that the median wages for doctors in France is $55,000 a year, which is pretty pathetic.

The study once again takes into account the fact that France has universal coverage, which is something that opponents of the Democrats plan for health care reform find undesirable. You see, we want health care in the United States to be like a Lincoln—that is, awesome. Being dignified and useful human beings, we don't ask our government to buy it for us, and I'm quite content going through life worrying about myself and my family and providing what they need. Let France keep their Ford Focus, even if it's cheap enough for everyone. The fact that everyone has something in no way increases it's quality.

And for the whole "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" thing, the French generally have a sense of entitlement that dwarfs any American's ego. Those in the know are privy to the fact that France didn't help us invade Iraq not because they didn't improve of the war, but because every french male from 16-45 years of age was on strike at the time.

 

[mheslep]

How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health?

How about it?

Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? ...

Superiority of what? Soccer players? Yes the US men need reform in soccer, but US women are strong. What does this article have to do with your post #11 on outcomes? The article doesn't even use the word 'outcome', other than one time than to make a point about unequal outcomes by class in France.

But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.

Ride the bus if you want to live longer.

 

[mheslep]

Just more of the same—it points out all sorts of problems with French health care, including the fact that the median wages for doctors in France is $55,000 a year, which is pretty pathetic.

Yes, though the French mostly don't have the high medical education bills, don't have the malpractice penalties. I'd say US docs are overpaid, or at least are not paid based on free competition. They basically collude on pricing and somehow escape anti-trust action. Same with US med-schools. There have been some proposals to break up the behavior.

The study once again takes into account the fact that France has universal coverage, which is something that opponents of the Democrats plan for health care reform find undesirable.

I don't think that's right - opponents also want care for everybody, they just don't want it run by the government (public option). As that NIH article says about France, it's possible to get universal health coverage w/out single payer or government run medical facilities - the French don't have single payer. I think however it is important to focus on medical care though, not coverage, as guaranteeing universal coverage alone just will get us a guaranteed place in a queue.

You see, we want health care in the United States to be like a Lincoln—that is, awesome. Being dignified and useful human beings, we don't ask our government to buy it for us, and I'm quite content going through life worrying about myself and my family and providing what they need. Let France keep their Ford Focus, even if it's cheap enough for everyone. The fact that everyone has something in no way increases it's quality.

To tighten up the analogy, that Lincoln would be costing not you directly, but costs you indirectly through your employer maybe $120k - yes its nice but the cost is insane, and the buyer is oblivious to the cost because he only makes the $20 copay.

France's medical outcomes are pretty good - not quite as good as the US but French medicine is no Ford Focus, they're at or near the top in Europe.

And for the whole "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" thing, the French generally have a sense of entitlement that dwarfs any American's ego. Those in the know are privy to the fact that France didn't help us invade Iraq not because they didn't improve of the war, but because every french male from 16-45 years of age was on strike at the time.

This gets a big , as I got stuck in France once due to a transpo strike.

 

[Choronzon]

Yes, though the French mostly don't have the high medical education bills, don't have the malpractice penalties. I'd say US docs are overpaid, or at least are not paid based on free competition. They basically collude on pricing and somehow escape anti-trust action. Same with US med-schools. There have been some proposals to break up the behavior.

So doctors should make less than a mediocre used car salesman? Any American who can read, write, and do simple math can make $55,000 a year with a little ambition and hard work.

I don't think that's right - opponents also want care for everybody, they just don't want it run by the government (public option). As that NIH article says about France, it's possible to get universal health coverage w/out single payer or government run medical facilities - the French don't have single payer. I think however it is important to focus on medical care though, not coverage, as guaranteeing universal coverage alone just will get us a guaranteed place in a queue.

I disagree. While in principle it would be nice if everyone made enough money to afford their own health care, I accept the fact that some people will never do more in life than just scrape by, and I know the only way to actually cover them is to pay out of Government coffers. As that's a big no-no for me, I actually don't want universal coverage.

To tighten up the analogy, that Lincoln would be costing not you directly, but costs you indirectly through your employer maybe $120k - yes its nice but the cost is insane, and the buyer is oblivious to the cost because he only makes the $20 copay.

Actually, I'm self-employed, so I quite realize the cost of my health-care.

France's medical outcomes are pretty good - not quite as good as the US but French medicine is no Ford Focus, they're at or near the top in Europe.

It may not have been the best analogy, but the point I was trying to make is that these studies have all taken into account the availability of health care when ranking the nations. However heartless it sounds, I want to know how good the health care is for me, not for some hypothetical average American. What's my chances of recovering from a major illness and living a long life? What about my brother and parents? My daughter? Statistics that include people who can't afford health care won't tell me that.

This gets a big , as I got stuck in France once due to a transpo strike.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/200...ecession?TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850"

Read the second to last sentence. Ever since I read that, I've had a very hard time taking France seriously.

 

[mheslep]

So doctors should make less than a mediocre used car salesman? ...

I think you misread, I agree $55k is too low.

I disagree. While in principle it would be nice if everyone made enough money to afford their own health care, I accept the fact that some people will never do more in life than just scrape by, and I know the only way to actually cover them is to pay out of Government coffers. As that's a big no-no for me, I actually don't want universal coverage.

You're redirecting this to being about your opinion which is fine, but in the prior post you were asserting what generic 'opponents' are doing, which I took to be lawmakers. Generally the Republican plans are attempting to cover everybody through the private insurance system and the existing entitlement programs.

Actually, I'm self-employed, so I quite realize the cost of my health-care.

I've also have been self employed and priced individual insurance. You probably know full well to the dime what the insurance premiums cost, but I doubt very much if you know what your health care actually costs: the cost of prescription drugs, even the primary doctor's visit beyond the $20 copay - few people on plans pay attention to that.

...the point I was trying to make is that these studies have all taken into account the availability of health care when ranking the nations. However heartless it sounds, I want to know how good the health care is for me, not for some hypothetical average American. What's my chances of recovering from a major illness and living a long life? What about my brother and parents? My daughter? Statistics that include people who can't afford health care won't tell me that.

It's not heartless at all to want to know the competence and quality of the medical system. I make the point all the time that the US has unsurpassed medical quality. But it is not twice as good as all other countries, its only marginally better than many, though US care costs twice as much.

 

[Choronzon]

I think you misread, I agree $55k is too low.

You're redirecting this to being about your opinion which is fine, but in the prior post you were asserting what generic 'opponents' are doing, which I took to be lawmakers. Generally the Republican plans are attempting to cover everybody through the private insurance system and the existing entitlement programs.

True, I didn't mean to speak for Republican lawmakers, but more as a citizen who is part of the opposition, i.e. what many would call libertarians, or tea-partiers, or whatever.

I've also have been self employed and priced individual insurance. You probably know full well to the dime what the insurance premiums cost, but I doubt very much if you know what your health care actually costs: the cost of prescription drugs, even the primary doctor's visit beyond the $20 copay - few people on plans pay attention to that.

You're right again, I don't think I know for sure what my care costs at hospitals or anything, but since I have a high-deductible and generally pay my doctors visits out of pocket, I think I do know up to that point.

It's not heartless at all to want to know the competence and quality of the medical system. I make the point all the time that the US has unsurpassed medical quality. But it is not twice as good as all other countries, its only marginally better than many, though US care costs twice as much.

Are you sure? Is a 25% higher chance at survival for a specific procedure worth twice the cost? 15%? 10%? How about 2%?

If I had to answer that as honestly as a person can who isn't actually staring such a procedure in the face, I'd have to answer 5% higher survival rate is worth twice as much to me. Maybe if I was frightened I might even go down to 2%. Who knows?

 

[mheslep]

but since I have a high-deductible and generally pay my doctors visits out of pocket, I think I do know up to that point.

Oh I missed this - I speculate that these high deductible plans are by far the most important innovation keeping costs from exploding more than they are. I could fill pages of personal anecdotes for myself and friends where the 'price' somehow dropped by half or the like when I/they were paying out of pocket.

...Are you sure? Is a 25% higher chance at survival for a specific procedure worth twice the cost? 15%? 10%? How about 2%?

If I had to answer that as honestly as a person can who isn't actually staring such a procedure in the face, I'd have to answer 5% higher survival rate is worth twice as much to me. Maybe if I was frightened I might even go down to 2%. Who knows?

Hard to put a price on that. I'd look at it a differently: the price of US health care has been going up at 8-9% per year for some time. 1. That's unsustainable, regardless of how much we'd pay a premium for 'a little better'. 2. The quality of the care has not been getting 8-9% better every year, my take. 3. In many ways the US has not had a free market in health care since WWII. In some states there is only one insurance company, and individual plans can't compete well without the employer health benefits tax break. So without a good market nobody can say what a fair price is.

 

[Nusc]

Alan Grayson is clearly the new face of the Democratic Party - maybe Obama will put him on the next ticket. The Republicans should encourage Grayson to speak as often as possible.

It gets even better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFK9XuXCeno&feature=channel

"we should care about people even after their born"
making reference to those who are against abortion but do not support health care.

The man deserves more credit.

 

[Choronzon]

It gets even better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFK9XuXCeno&feature=channel

"we should care about people even after their born"
making reference to those who are against abortion but do not support health care.

The man deserves more credit.

There is quite a difference between a person who thinks a fetus is a human life and deserves protection and believing that it is societies duty to support it's unproductive members.

 

[Nusc]

It just gets even better:
Highlight: 4:25-5:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL5Hjn6xMmU&feature=channel_page

 

[Al68]

How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687

Are you joking? You reference a propaganda piece by an obviously delusional idiot with an obviously socialist mentality, published by a special interest group?

Dude, the first few paragraphs were such obvious socialist propaganda and nonsense (that would only convince a retarded 12 year old), that I had to stop reading. The "French ideal" is a "lesson" for the U.S.? I take it back, I think most retarded 12 year olds could see right through it.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think Alan Grayson could support all of his comments if they were posted on PF. Would anyone like to give it a try?

 

[Nusc]

It just doesn't stop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPAtYGlgiqI&feature=channel

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you are arguing to defend some mythical "proper" insurance that does not exist.

No, I'm not defending anything, I'm arguing for my personal preference about how insurance should work as opposed to the current democratic plan about how it should work. Neither exists right now, but I believe my ideas are significantly better than what is proposed. I think everyone agrees that there are problems with what exists now. I'm just arguing that my "mythical" ideas about how to fix things are better than Obama's "mythical" ideas.

 

[WhoWee]

Some stats from the CDC - a breakdown of who is most likely to be uninsured. Any attempt to "fix" health care should include a specific study of who is currently insured, how they are insured, and how the legislation will address the problem.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200909.htm

"Public and private coverage

From January to March 2009, 21.1% of persons under age 65 years were covered by public health plans at the time of interview, and 63.7% were covered by private health insurance plans (Table 3). Almost two-thirds (66.8%) of adults aged 18-64 were covered by a private plan, compared with 55.8% of children under age 18 (Figure 1).

More than one-third of children (38.7%) were covered by a public plan, compared with 14.1% of adults aged 18-64 (Figure 1). The percentage of children covered by a public health plan increased from 34.2% in 2008 to 38.7% in the first 3 months of 2009.


Insurance coverage, by poverty status

From January to March 2009, 12.7% of poor children and 10.5% of near poor children (see Technical Notes for definition of poverty) did not have health insurance coverage at the time of interview (Table 4). The percentage of near poor children who lacked coverage at the time of interview decreased from 15.6% in 2008 to 10.5% in the first 3 months of 2009.

Based on January to March 2009 data, 80.3% of poor children and 59.8% of near poor children were covered by a public health plan at the time of interview (Table 5). The observed increase in public coverage for near poor children from 53.4% in 2008 to 59.8% in the first 3 months of 2009 was not significant. Based on January to March 2009 data, 39.4% of poor adults aged 18-64 were covered by a public plan (Table 5).

From January to March 2009, 8.6% of poor children and 36.7% of near poor children were covered by private health insurance at the time of interview (Table 6). There was no significant change in private coverage for poor, near poor, and not poor children between 2008 and the first 3 months of 2009. Among poor adults aged 18-64, 19.1% were covered by private health insurance in the first 3 months of 2009.


Lack of coverage, by selected demographic characteristics


Race/ethnicity

Based on data from the January to March 2009 NHIS, Hispanic persons were considerably more likely than non-Hispanic white persons, non-Hispanic black persons, and non-Hispanic Asian persons to be uninsured at the time of interview, to have been uninsured for at least part of the past 12 months, and to have been uninsured for more than a year (Table 7).

Approximately one-third of Hispanic persons were uninsured at the time of interview or had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and more than one-fourth of Hispanic persons had been without health insurance coverage for more than a year.
Age and sex

For all persons under age 65 years, the percentage who were uninsured at the time of interview was highest among those aged 18-24 (29.6%) and lowest among those under age 18 (8.2%) (Figure 2). Starting at age 18, younger adults were more likely than older adults to lack health insurance coverage. Among adults in age groups 18-24, 25-34, and 35-44 years, men were more likely than women to lack health insurance coverage at the time of interview.
Other demographic characteristics

Lack of health insurance coverage was greatest in the South and West regions of the United States (Table 7). Among adults who lacked a high school diploma, 35.5% were uninsured at the time of interview, 39.1% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 29.5% had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of interview. These rates are two to more than three times as high as those for persons with more than a high school education. Among currently unemployed adults aged 18-64, 63.5% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 34.8% had been uninsured for more than a year. Among employed adults aged 18-64, 21.5% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 13.2% had been uninsured for more than a year. Married or widowed adults were more likely to have coverage than those who were divorced, separated, living with a partner, or never married."

Coverage has actually INCREASED for poor children during the 1997 to 2009 period.

"Public and private coverage

Public coverage rates among both children and adults aged 18-64 are higher now than in 1997 (Table 3). Conversely, private health care coverage rates among both children and adults aged 18-64 are lower now than in 1997.
Insurance coverage, by poverty status

The percentage of poor children who were uninsured at the time of interview decreased from 1997 through March 2009 (Figure 8). During the same period, the percentage of poor adults who were uninsured remained relatively stable (Figure 9).

Among children, all poverty status groups experienced an increase in public coverage between 1997 and March 2009 (Table 5). However, the largest increase was seen among near poor children, for whom coverage by a public plan more than doubled during the same period.

The rate of private coverage among near poor children was 18.3 percentage points lower in the first 3 months of 2009 than in 1997 (Table 6). As shown in Figure 10, among near poor children the percentage without health insurance and the percentage with private health insurance coverage have declined since 1997, while public coverage increased. Private coverage decreased among near poor adults aged 18-64 from 52.6% in 1997 to 39.1% in the first 3 months of 2009 (Figure 11). Private coverage among not poor adults decreased from 87.1% in 1997 to 82.3% in the first 3 months of 2009."

 

[byronm]

byronm, I see you're making your first post on PF. I'd like to be the first to welcome you. Care to tell us a little about your background and experience?

Not my first post, we've debated many times, not sure why its not increasing :)

My insurance dealings? When my sister died, when my brother got hit my a car, when my 2 children were borne and when i go into get lypomas removed and checked in case they have any risk of cancer. Wife's father died to lukemia and bankrupted her family..

 

[turbo]

Not my first post, we've debated many times, not sure why its not increasing :)

My insurance dealings? When my sister died, when my brother got hit my a car, when my 2 children were borne and when i go into get lypomas removed and checked in case they have any risk of cancer. Wife's father died to lukemia and bankrupted her family..

Byronm, posts in General Discussion (including sub-forums like Politics) do not add to your post count.

 

[Pattonias]

The problem is we are trying to force moral obligations into an argument about a purely financial situation. The only reason we have health insurance is a group of people found a way to make money by offering health insurance to the healthy. They did not intend (and were not expected) to provide health care out of the goodness of their hearts. The insurance companies started as a way of making money the same way that all companies did. Is this evil. Should we punish them for this fact. I think it is wrong for insurance companies to drop coverage when someone gets "too sick", but they do this because their goal was to make money. They should not be able to drop someone who has been paying into their insurance according to the intent behind their contract.

What needs to be addressed is the insurance companies risk avoidance principles that they are using when they attempt to drop people who become sick that payed for their insurance. If they attempt to drop someone who is covered they should be stopped. This repair of the system would be health care reform.

Free health care would be spreading the expense around so that everyone is able to pay for whatever treatment they require. They should not pretend that this is "insurance" if it covers people with existing conditions. In order for this system to work the government should find a way to make treatments cheaper in general, if the amount that we pay to cover the treatment of the poor is higher than the cost of treatment then the program would work. Right now all this is going to do is make the cost of treatment rise. The medical industry will see that they can charge more for treatment because people will be able to pay for whatever outrageous expense they encounter when they become sick.

We are mixing points when we argue that it is sad that some people may die because they can not afford to receive medical treatment, but until you find a solution that can pay for itself all we will be doing is paying for peoples health care because we decide that it has become a national responsibility, not a repair of a corrupt system. We should just call this what it is. It is a socialist reform to a currently private system.

The "Die Quickly" statement was this guys attempt at standing out by making a outrageous remark at the expense of his peers in order to get national attention. He just wanted his particular agenda to stand out and this is how he chose to do it. It was wrong in that he stood out at the expense of his peers. It was right in that the opinion of the people that voted for him got their opinion heard. Obviously republicans are not proposing that people "Die Quickly". I am sick of people acting like if this bill doesn't pass we are all going to die. They need to take the time to get this right and not try and rush through something that will not work. The Democrats need to stop being so darn dramatic and the republicans need to stop acting like a bunch of whiny kids. I am tired of these proposals going through without any bi-partisan support. The only reason they can not come to a conclusive agreement is purely political posturing. The Republicans are hoping this fails simply because they want to come out on top in the next election. The Democrats are not trying to incorporate moderate Republican input because they do not have to. They have to much pull right now.