Universal Health Insurance (2)

[Caesar517]

1.7%? that is not even enough money. So much for the idea that people will give munificently.

That 1.7% doesn’t represent people’s money, it is a portion of the GDP.

 

[cynic]

Don’t call it voluntary if I have to pay for it!
There is nothing voluntary about taxes!

The only cost to the taxpayer would be to set it up. Again you believe your right to absolute economic autonomy is more important than what works. In which case why discuss the benefits of failings of such a system with you - what is the point. What is left to say?

 

[ribozyme]

That 1.7% doesn’t represent people’s money, it is a portion of the GDP.

Ok… so 1.7% of GDP isn’t a significant proportion then. I am sorry that I did not specify 1.7% of what again. But that number still shows that people are still not that charitable.

 

[BamaRider]

Here’s a good one for you, Guy:

usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-30-uninsuredvets_N.htm

Heartwarming stuff, don’t you think? But then again, those damn vets have too many big screen TVs. Well, that’s what I always say.

I know I’m not supposed to paste articles into responses, but here’s the first few paragraphs anyway. Also good bedtime reading.

August 29, 2006

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”

That was 2006. The numbers for 2008 are higher, somewhere around 48 million.

And the thing is, Guy, when it’s Pathia we understand. It gets a human face. When you hear about millions you just want to, well, not hear it.

You’re still not telling me how many of those 16% Americans without health insurance are that way by choice? Meaning they’d rather have a boat then insurance.

The article says 15% don’t have health coverage and because of them you wanna put the remaining 85% in a govt scam? Tell me what I’m missing??

Lets say half of that 15% are by choice, so that leaves about 8% of the folks that really need something done. Ok I’ll go along with that, but explain to me why you want to hold the remaining 85% of the population hostage???

The aptly named cynic came on and asked this-

what is the point. What is left to say?

Not much when you’re trying to sell UHC to 85% of a population that has health insurance and low taxes.

 

[Caesar517]

Ok… so 1.7% of GDP isn’t a significant proportion then. I am sorry that I did not specify 1.7% of what again. But that number still shows that people are still not that charitable.

It is significant. Our economy curretly devotes 2.5% to 3.0% of the GDP to R&D, and those markets seem very large. About 70% of our GDP is made up of services, rather than goods. It can be surprising what it takes to keep an economy functioning.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ok… so 1.7% of GDP isn’t a significant proportion then. I am sorry that I did not specify 1.7% of what again. But that number still shows that people are still not that charitable.

Are you really saying that you find it insignificant that the people in this country give almost 300 Billion dollars to charitable causes they believe in in a given year?

Are you really saying that you find it insignificant that the people in this country give more than twice as much to charity as the next most charitable country?

This proves two of my points-

first, that socialists will always downplay individual efforts because they don’t want individuals to feel more powerful than the State.

second, other first world countries have already gulped down the socialist kool-aid, and consequently the citizens of those countries give little to charity because they are either taxed too heavily to afford to give, or because they feel that the government has taken the place of their personal responsibility to respond to the needs of others.

If socialized medicine is inflicted on this country, then I sincerely believe that charitable giving will decline to the pitiful levels of England and France. Folks like ribozyme will assume that this is evidence that charity could not have been counted on because of their own lack of confidence in their ability to help one another. However, those of us who aren’t socialists will recognize that the potential for individual charity was curtailed by the government overstepping its bounds.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Here’s a good one for you, Guy:

usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-30-uninsuredvets_N.htm

Heartwarming stuff, don’t you think? But then again, those damn vets have too many big screen TVs. Well, that’s what I always say.

I know I’m not supposed to paste articles into responses, but here’s the first few paragraphs anyway. Also good bedtime reading.

August 29, 2006

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”

That was 2006. The numbers for 2008 are higher, somewhere around 48 million.

And the thing is, Guy, when it’s Pathia we understand. It gets a human face. When you hear about millions you just want to, well, not hear it.

Yeah, I’ve heard these numbers spun like this before-most notably by Michael Moore…

but here’s what your numbers left out:

You cited that “Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005”

In reality, when you only count US citizens, that number drops to 37 million- because your study includes the 9.487 million non-citizens currently living here.

and so you’d probably respond “37 Millions is still too many!”

Ok, well, according to the same report, of those 37 Million:

• 8.3 million uninsured people make between 50,000 and 74,999 per year.
• 8.74 million make more than 75,000 per year
• for a grand total of about 17 million people of that 37 who could afford coverage.

So now your number drops to 20 million- still too much? Don’t forget that those numbers don’t include the children of those people who make enough to afford insurance but elect not to- that number is very fuzzy, because I can’t seem to find any studies that correlate uninsured children to irresponsible parents who can afford insurance but don’t have it.

Anyway, of those 20 million, 60% reported being in excellent or very good health. This would include, for example, those people who are qualified for government healthcare because of their low income, but choose not to apply for it because they figure they are in good health and don’t need it, or simply don’t want to fill out a bunch of paperwork.

Also, 45% of those who were uninsured were actually only uninsured for less than 4 months of that year- in other words, they were in between jobs and elected not to use COBRA. I know that mindset, because I have never elected to pay for COBRA when I’ve been in between jobs because I am still relatively young and am in good health.

So that leaves us with a group of about 8-13 million people who are “Chronically uninsured.” These are the people who make less than $50,000 and/or cannot qualify for health insurance (like Pathia, for example). These are the people who need help, and who can’t, for one reason or another, seem to get it.

These are the people I would consider helping through charitable efforts-they aren’t opting out of insurance because they are lazy or because they’d rather have a big car-they genuinely can’t afford it or they can’t qualify for it. If the government got out of the way, and the charitable people in this country became aware that there is a specific need, then private social services organizations would pop up all over the place to help raise money to subsidize private insurance payments, support community clinics or other service providers that provide services for the poor, provide prescription medication relief, and advocate to providers and insurance groups for those who can’t do it themselves.

With all of that in mind, I say again that I don’t see the logic in creating a massive government bureaucracy that would force a cost of billions if not trillions on approximately 300 million people when only about 4% of those people are actually in real need. Why are you UHC supporters so opposed agreeing that we can simply help those in need without forcing government healthcare on the rest of the country?

source: businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx

 

[Oscarthecat]

The only cost to the taxpayer would be to set it up. Again you believe your right to absolute economic autonomy is more important than what works. In which case why discuss the benefits of failings of such a system with you - what is the point. What is left to say?

No, I believe that my right to absolute economic autonomy is more important than what you believe works.

I agree that our current healthcare system is damaged.

But it is clear that UHC is, at the very least, an equally damaged system.

But like you said, why discuss the benefits or failings of such a system with you- what is the point?

You are determined to replace one broken system with another.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Yeah, I’ve heard these numbers spun like this before-most notably by Michael Moore…

but here’s what your numbers left out:

You cited that “Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005”

In reality, when you only count US citizens, that number drops to 37 million- because your study includes the 9.487 million non-citizens currently living here.

and so you’d probably respond “37 Millions is still too many!”

Ok, well, according to the same report, of those 37 Million:

• 8.3 million uninsured people make between 50,000 and 74,999 per year.
• 8.74 million make more than 75,000 per year
• for a grand total of about 17 million people of that 37 who could afford coverage.

So now your number drops to 20 million- still too much? Don’t forget that those numbers don’t include the children of those people who make enough to afford insurance but elect not to- that number is very fuzzy, because I can’t seem to find any studies that correlate uninsured children to irresponsible parents who can afford insurance but don’t have it.

Anyway, of those 20 million, 60% reported being in excellent or very good health. This would include, for example, those people who are qualified for government healthcare because of their low income, but choose not to apply for it because they figure they are in good health and don’t need it, or simply don’t want to fill out a bunch of paperwork.

Also, 45% of those who were uninsured were actually only uninsured for less than 4 months of that year- in other words, they were in between jobs and elected not to use COBRA. I know that mindset, because I have never elected to pay for COBRA when I’ve been in between jobs because I am still relatively young and am in good health.

So that leaves us with a group of about 8-13 million people who are “Chronically uninsured.” These are the people who make less than $50,000 and/or cannot qualify for health insurance (like Pathia, for example). These are the people who need help, and who can’t, for one reason or another, seem to get it.

These are the people I would consider helping through charitable efforts-they aren’t opting out of insurance because they are lazy or because they’d rather have a big car-they genuinely can’t afford it or they can’t qualify for it. If the government got out of the way, and the charitable people in this country became aware that there is a specific need, then private social services organizations would pop up all over the place to help raise money to subsidize private insurance payments, support community clinics or other service providers that provide services for the poor, provide prescription medication relief, and advocate to providers and insurance groups for those who can’t do it themselves.

With all of that in mind, I say again that I don’t see the logic in creating a massive government bureaucracy that would force a cost of billions if not trillions on approximately 300 million people when only about 4% of those people are actually in real need. Why are you UHC supporters so opposed agreeing that we can simply help those in need without forcing government healthcare on the rest of the country?

source: businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx

Very compelling arguement.

 

[soma]

Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II spoke to the International Congress sponsored by World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy of Life.

He spoke of the right of a sick person, whether awaiting recovery or natural end of life, to receive basic health care, i.e. “nutrition, hydration, cleanliness. warmth, etc.”

People have a to health care more than others the right to horde money.

 

[goofyjim]

The way I see it people are still going to get sick and will need to see a doctor. If they default on those doctor’s bills the doctor has to charge more to the rest of his patients to cover the lost fees. That drives insurance rates up for those who are blessed enough to have inusrance but makes it even harder for those who don’t to see a doctor. Then more people start to see the doctor and default. Folks, we can spiraling costs this way as well. Unless you suggest callousness and tell the sick who don’t have insurance to stay home and tough it out. But like I say that would be callous. So the government insuring those who can’t get it elsewhere is the same as them propping up the banking and mortgage industry. Now does anyone here really suggest they stop doing that because if they do there will be alot of families selling off their homes and living on the streets. This is why the end may be coming for capitalism. I don’t want communism either but there may be an economic collapse coming down the road if we are only going to be driven by profit margins.

 

[goofyjim]

Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II spoke to the International Congress sponsored by World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy of Life.

He spoke of the right of a sick person, whether awaiting recovery or natural end of life, to receive basic health care, i.e. “nutrition, hydration, cleanliness. warmth, etc.”

People have a to health care more than others the right to horde money.

Yes, but maybe they only have these rights when they are on their deathbed and not for the rest of life.

 

[BamaRider]

Tor put this out a few posts ago-

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

So I came out and asked this-

You’re still not telling me how many of those 16% Americans without health insurance are that way by choice? Meaning they’d rather have a boat then insurance.

The article says 15% don’t have health coverage and because of them you wanna put the remaining 85% in a govt scam? Tell me what I’m missing??

Lets say half of that 15% are by choice, so that leaves about 8% of the folks that really need something done. Ok I’ll go along with that, but explain to me why you want to hold the remaining 85% of the population hostage???

But I never got a response.

So Oscar did some checking and filleted Tor’s posts with-

but here’s what your numbers left out:

You cited that “Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005”

In reality, when you only count US citizens, that number drops to 37 million- because your study includes the 9.487 million non-citizens currently living here.

and so you’d probably respond “37 Millions is still too many!”

Ok, well, according to the same report, of those 37 Million:
8.3 million uninsured people make between 50,000 and 74,999 per year.
8.74 million make more than 75,000 per year
for a grand total of about 17 million people of that 37 who could afford coverage.

So now your number drops to 20 million- still too much? Don’t forget that those numbers don’t include the children of those people who make enough to afford insurance but elect not to- that number is very fuzzy, because I can’t seem to find any studies that correlate uninsured children to irresponsible parents who can afford insurance but don’t have it.

Anyway, of those 20 million, 60% reported being in excellent or very good health. This would include, for example, those people who are qualified for government healthcare because of their low income, but choose not to apply for it because they figure they are in good health and don’t need it, or simply don’t want to fill out a bunch of paperwork.

Also, 45% of those who were uninsured were actually only uninsured for less than 4 months of that year- in other words, they were in between jobs and elected not to use COBRA. I know that mindset, because I have never elected to pay for COBRA when I’ve been in between jobs because I am still relatively young and am in good health.

So that leaves us with a group of about 8-13 million people who are “Chronically uninsured.” These are the people who make less than $50,000 and/or cannot qualify for health insurance (like Pathia, for example). These are the people who need help, and who can’t, for one reason or another, seem to get it.

These are the people I would consider helping through charitable efforts-they aren’t opting out of insurance because they are lazy or because they’d rather have a big car-they genuinely can’t afford it or they can’t qualify for it. If the government got out of the way, and the charitable people in this country became aware that there is a specific need, then private social services organizations would pop up all over the place to help raise money to subsidize private insurance payments, support community clinics or other service providers that provide services for the poor, provide prescription medication relief, and advocate to providers and insurance groups for those who can’t do it themselves.

With all of that in mind, I say again that I don’t see the logic in creating a massive government bureaucracy that would force a cost of billions if not trillions on approximately 300 million people when only about 4% of those people are actually in real need. Why are you UHC supporters so opposed agreeing that we can simply help those in need without forcing government healthcare on the rest of the country?

source: businessandmedia.org/arti…718153509.aspx

Professor Oscar can now adjourn the class, everyone has just been schooled.

 

[goofyjim]

Tor put this out a few posts ago-

So I came out and asked this-

But I never got a response.

So Oscar did some checking and filleted Tor’s posts with-

Professor Oscar can now adjourn the class, everyone has just been schooled.

I don’t think so.

 

[Caesar517]

Professor Oscar can now adjourn the class, everyone has just been schooled.

Well done Oscar!

 

[goofyjim]

This class is by no means adjourned. Many moons ago and it continues to be true now that costs will rise for everyone when patients default on doctor bills. The doctors have a hippocratic oath to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. When they can’t collect because someone has no means then they pass it on to everyone else. Then their insurance rates and medical costs go up. Eventually many will be without insurance. Are there any statistics presented to show why those making over 50,000 don’t have insurance? Could it be because they are trying to mortgage a home and feed their children and commute to work? Maybe they have to juggle alot of expenses. Everyone keeps saying how 75,000 is not necessarily wealthy and I agree. So they may not be uninsured by choice. Therefore we still have a problem with how to get them medical treatment with no insurance and without driving up the costs for those insured. Either way we are going to pay. It’s almost 6 on one hand, 1/2 dozen on the other.

 

[goofyjim]

Of course I could recommend that for those who are poor they get a tax credit similar to the EITC as long as it is used for buying private health insurance. If that results in a bigeer refund than they paid in taxes so be it. It is still not government run healthcare.

 

[Caesar517]

The doctors have a hippocratic oath to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay.

Perhaps I missed it; where in the Hippocratic Oath does it say that doctors must treat everyone regardless of ability to pay? :ehh:

 

[goofyjim]

Perhaps I missed it; where in the Hippocratic Oath does it say that doctors must treat everyone regardless of ability to pay? :ehh:

Then they are more concerned about money. Everyone should have access to healthcare equally across the board regardless of ability to pay. Maybe that was the proper way to phrase that. Denying anyone healthcare for any reason is callous.

 

[Caesar517]

Then they are more concerned about money.

That’s a more legitimate way to phrase it, but I think that’s an untrue blanket statement.

Everyone should have access to healthcare equally across the board regardless of ability to pay.

That’s a normative statement, with which I disagree.

Maybe that was the proper way to phrase that. Denying anyone healthcare for any reason is callous.

Why do you feel that person A is entitled to the services of person B? We do have basic human rights, but the unalienable right to someone else’s services cannot be one of them.