Reid finally admits the obvious about Obamacare

Back to the flawed WHO study for "facts" we go, huh Jazzer? Would you care to address the crticical flaws in that study that have been brought up previously? The US is a melting pot of ethnic diversity, the other countries not so much. How does this diversity affect such things as infant mortality rates and life expectancy, the factors which weighted most heavily in the WHO study? You also realize, or at least I hope you do, that the US was ranked #1 in that study for repsonsiveness or quality of treatment, right? Is a change in how care is paid for going to magically lower our obesity rate, which is the #1 factor in both the lower life expectancy and infant mortality rates here? For some strange and unknown reason I seriously doubt that obesity is tied to who pays for health care, but you keep on comparing those apples and oranges, OK?

In Canada, which has a single payer system, there are 6 MRI machines per million people. In the US that number is 26 machines per million. Sure, fewer machines per capita is going to reduce the cost of providing care, but it is also going to decrease service, which is why the US was #1 in quality of treatment while Canada finished #7 in that metric of the study. One must also look at how this very real difference effects the cost of care. 4x the number of machines per capita multiplied by 10x the population means we have a much larger cost overall than Canada does, and that is simply for MRI machines. Then you have the costs associated with the people who operate the machines, and the costs associated with the buildings in which they are located, the cost of energy to operate the machines, the costs associated with maintaining the machines, the costs associated with training the people who operate the machines and all the rest of it. I'm certain that we can cut the costs by cutting availibiliy, as Canada has done, but is that going to result in better care for the population? Or is it more likely that it will result in our falling from #1 in quality of care according to the WHO to a place next to Canada?

You are trying to say that the study proves something that it doesn't prove Jazzer, which is not surprising at all, at least not to me. Yes, we pay more for our healthcare here, but we also get what we pay for, the best quality of care to be found anywhere. Even the WHO study that you site confirms this.

LadyJazzer wrote: "will average $9,000 per person still, so $30k+ for a family)"....Really?...And your source for that would be? I'm still waiting....

1. I accept that other nations with socialized care pay less, have not argued against this, this is part of my justification for accepting it, it seems to do better than they way we currently manipulate our medical industry. This is also my reason for not wanting the ACA, it delays the thing that both you and I agree should cost us less, a Euro style system....That is not where we are currently going.

2. In regards to sources...and this is far easier to look up than just about anything.

US population - 2011 - $310,000,000 - that is 310 million people - simple to understand. This information is widely available and typically not disputed, go to US federal census.

US Expenditures - 2011 - $2,700,000,000,000 - that is 2,700,000 million dollars - simple to understand. This information actually comes from your church...I mean the federal govt.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- ... lights.pdf

In case you did not know the CMS is described as follows in Wikipedia:

"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), is a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that administers the Medicare program and works in partnership with state governments to administer Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and health insurance portability standards. In addition to these programs, CMS has other responsibilities, including the administrative simplification standards from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), quality standards in long-term care facilities (more commonly referred to as nursing homes) through its survey and certifi"

In their report they quote $8680 as the annual health cost per person in the US. I was off by $320 or less than 5% of the total.

Now that you have the information from a source you trust.

Simply divide the two - this is a skill commonly taught in 3rd and 4th grade.

Now that you have the facts....what did you think folks were spending on average and why do you think this is such a big deal.

I appreciate the person that quotes some great references on single payer. My question is still in the version that people want here - how would it work, who would pay for what when.

I/we have outlined a few options, which way should it work here if that is where we are going. LJ, what type would you want, Govt insurance or govt hospitals? I say once we go down this road, there should be govt hospitals and employees (this is a pretty big diversion for me), and not simply govt insurance.

And again, since the goal was to reduce health care costs and keep the govt from paying them...can anyone simply explain how the current ACA system coming into play will reduce us significantly below $9,000 PER PERSON in the US and if so, approximately what is your prediction of per year per person health care costs in the US come say 2015 or 2020, lets say not adjusted for inflation, because folks that had trouble understanding diving the total health care cost by the total population may have trouble with something as complex as inflation.

Again, see the ridiculously simple and available sources for our extreme average health care costs above.

Again, the ACA is a money grab for the insurance agencies, and always has been, I bet the average cost per person exceeds $20,000 by the end of the decade, and those with the do good attitude that usually create the problems they love to solve, will just love this one. I will be flabbergasted if the cost even stays the same. I am sure when we hit $20k per person per year, the argument will be that we just have not done enough ACA type stuff we need more ACAs. And again, the ACA is the biggest barrier to universal care (not single payer, but universal care) - we need to start focusing on the service if this is a need rather than the money like it is a business. If it is business, it does not need outside help to make decisions, if it is a right (an entitlement by definition), just give it to people using our collective resources.

Again, around $9,000 per person per year, with sources above. Sources few would dispute, direct from LJs favorite group - the FEDERAL GOVT and its endless agencies.

on that note wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: "will average $9,000 per person still, so $30k+ for a family)"....Really?...And your source for that would be? I'm still waiting....

2. In regards to sources...and this is far easier to look up than just about anything.

US population - 2011 - $310,000,000 - that is 310 million people - simple to understand. This information is widely available and typically not disputed, go to US federal census.

US Expenditures - 2011 - $2,700,000,000,000 - that is 2,700,000 million dollars - simple to understand. This information actually comes from your church...I mean the federal govt.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- ... lights.pdf

So, your "source" is that you took one simplistic number, and divided it by another simplistic number and came up with bullcrap; and ignored all of the other details in the reports... Got it... I kind of expected more---but, silly me....

Nothing to see here, folks...Move along....

[youtube:12zzx88s][/youtube:12zzx88s]

LadyJazzer wrote:

on that note wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: "will average $9,000 per person still, so $30k+ for a family)"....Really?...And your source for that would be? I'm still waiting....

2. In regards to sources...and this is far easier to look up than just about anything.

US population - 2011 - $310,000,000 - that is 310 million people - simple to understand. This information is widely available and typically not disputed, go to US federal census.

US Expenditures - 2011 - $2,700,000,000,000 - that is 2,700,000 million dollars - simple to understand. This information actually comes from your church...I mean the federal govt.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- ... lights.pdf

So, your "source" is that you took one simplistic number, and divided it by another simplistic number and came up with bullcrap; and ignored all of the other details in the reports... Got it... I kind of expected more---but, silly me....

Nothing to see here, folks...Move along....

So the average is bullcrap? Wow.

Simplistic number, the total? Wow.

Then implying that others should accept that there is nothing to see? Wow.

I stated an average, you questioned it and asked for a source and when clearly provided, you discount that this is a reasonable measure of central tendency when it is the first one that all of us learn and most barely understand? Wow.

Would you prefer the median health care cost?

What is a reasonable measure to say that health care is too much and how will we measure how it has gone down? With all due respect for your ability to process amazingly intense amounts of information into a clean a crisp opinion, are we all to simply wait until you say the ACA has worked? How will you or your govt minions measure this? and please do not use a source or quotes, in your own words how do you measure how much Americans are paying for health care, why is it considered too expensive and how will we know it has gone down? And if you have to include sources, please read them to make sure they don't cite simplistic things like total health care costs, quantities of people or the averages that result.

I suggest people pay attention vs. move along.

LadyJazzer wrote: It doesn't address it by necessarily "raising the premiums"...(Another Randroid talking-point...) They address it by having MORE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. The premiums of those additional people in the system bring the costs down. The economists are already predicting that with single-payer, and EVERYONE in the system, it saves $500 BILLION in the first ten years.

If you want details: Single Payer Saves Billions

If having but one form to fill out and submit is going to truly save billions, why then did the Democrats fail to include that in their "Affordable Care Act"? Surely if the Congress has the power to use the force of government to compel participation in economic activity of its choosing it has the power to regulate that a specific form be used by everyone who is forced to be part of that economic activity, don't they? Do we really need single payer to force the use of a single form? I would think not given the "progressive" interpretation that the power of Congress is limited solely by the imagination of the people who populate it.

Also buried in the article was this gem:

Friedman said the savings would also fund $51 billion in transition costs such as retraining displaced workers from the insurance industry and phasing out investor-owned, for-profit delivery systems.

Wasn't it you who opined earlier in this thread that:

LadyJazzer wrote: Your argument, as usual, is based on a lie... "Da Gub'mnt is going to take ownership of da hospitals, equipment, ad nauseum..." But when you don't have facts, throw a strawman up there and knock it down. For the teabaggers who scream "socialism" and "government takeover of health care", and all of the other focus-group-tested phrases at every opportunity, it's generally sufficient to substitute for actual facts. (Reagan tried to sell the same snake-oil when MediCare became the law of the land. Medicare was NOT a "Gub'mnt takeover of health care", "Da Gub'mnt does NOT own the doctors, hospitals, equipment, ad nauseum,...", and it has the lowest overhead and operating expense ratio of ANY government program....AND IT WORKS.")

Would you care to resolve the apparent discrepancy between what you wish for us to believe and what is contained in the link that you have provided? Clearly the economist that you are relying on is talking about the government taking ownership of hospitals and employing the workers in the health care industry because that economist is talking about phasing out investor-owned for-profit delivery systems entirely. How do you phase out investor-owned for-profit delivery systems and keep private hospitals Jazzer? Would you care to enlighten us on how this proposal works without nationalizing the hospitals?

Moving along . . . . . .

archer wrote:

deltamrey wrote: The point for many of the US citizens who pay attention is that we paid into Medicare for decades and into Social Security.....we worked and paid. Obama Care hands medicaid to anyone who can fog a mirror with no sacrifice...........and 30-50 MILLION illegals ........IT will not stand and many pols will fall with it.......promise..

Got a source for any of the claims in bold....or are these just more right wing blog fantasies?

Will Jazzer's source suffice for you?

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

Last I knew there was a difference between "citizens" and "residents" archer, but perhaps that is part and parcel of the "fundamental transformation" that this president seeks to implement, removing that distinction entirely.

What is patently obvious to anyone is that the ACA does nothing to address the use of emergency rooms as primary care facilities for those who are residing in the Union in violation of its immigration laws. That cost isn't going anywhere, it will still be born under the ACA in the same manner that it is currently being born, by charging those with insurance a higher premium and charging those that are hospitalized a higher price to cover the added costs imposed by federal decree that a hospital must treat anyone who walks through their doors into the emergency room regardless of their ability to pay for the services they consume. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad policy mind you, I'm simply pointing out that the ACA does nothing to lower that cost regardless of what the "progressives" say. That cost could have been lowered by requiring that GPs, instead of emergency rooms, treat anyone who walks through their doors. We'd all still be paying more for health care mind you, but we wouldn't be paying as much as we are paying now to have the poor and indigent, along with the illegal aliens, use emergency rooms to have their child's sore throat looked at or a doctor to tell the parent that the child's fever can be addressed with over the counter medications available at any grocery or drug store. An office visit to a GP might cost a couple hundred dollars instead of several hundred at the emergency room, and yet this cost saving measure also escaped the attention of the Democrats when they rammed through the ACA.

And precisely how does more people in the system lower the cost when the new people in the system are having their premiums subsidized by the very same people who were subsidizing their care before? It's not like the people who couldn't afford insurance before are now magically going to be able to afford insurance unless someone gives them the money to purchase the insurance with, right? All we've really done is add another layer of cost to the system by making them go through the insurance company first. We give them the money to send to the insurance company who then sends it to the hospital rather than sending the money directly to the hospital or paying a nominal additional amount on every hospital bill. How does that save money when the money is changing hands one additional time?

Say whatever you want "guys", but its real simple- right now we pay more and get less than any other country on earth. We pay more and get less, and its all because of the Healthcare Free Loaders...So it's about time that somebody in the government crack down on the them and make them pay thier own way for a change..

#ThankyouObama

You aren't paying attention VL. Even the WHO, whose flawed study ranks us at 37 globally, says that here in this Union is the best quality of care to be found anywhere on the globe. Health care "freeloaders" as you term them are a result of legislation coming out of Democrat controlled legislatures at the State and federal level. And the latest offering from such a body is that you and I, in addition to subsidizing the care they receive are now also going to be subsidizing the insurance premiums that are paid to the insurance companies so that they get a piece of the pie before the money is used to pay for their care. That, bottom line, is what the "crowning achievement" of this president actually is. The poor and the indigent are still "freeloading". They aren't suddenly able to afford to purchase the insurance they couldn't purchase before, someone else's money is being used to purchase that insurance that the Congress decreed they must have. I'll give you 3 guesses, the first two don't count, as to whose money that is. Any money you might actually save on your insurance premium is still being taken from you and given to the insurance company to provide insurance for someone else, so how is it costing you less than it did before? Are you really so naive as to believe that simply because your funds are going somwhere else that they are not still coming out of your pocket before they get there?

Vice Lord wrote: Say whatever you want "guys", but its real simple- right now we pay more and get less than any other country on earth. We pay more and get less, and its all because of the Healthcare Free Loaders...So it's about time that somebody in the government crack down on the them and make them pay thier own way for a change..

#ThankyouObama

ALL because of the healthcare freeloaders.....?

AND not because people accept ridiculously high prices for good and services in this industry because they think their insurance will cover it? (even though their insurance goes up next year, but that is next year)

AND not because people can sue for anything they want and think doctors are perfect?

AND most certainly not because doctors will not tell you the cost of their services prior to serving you?

AND most certainly not because we have a policy of making private businesses serve people that cannot pay and pass the cost on to us?

You are going to solve this by taking the same group of poor (low amounts of resources) freeloaders that you and other often say we need to help and use their extra money to solve the money problems of the class above them.

You can say what you want but if this is a big financing issue, the poorest most desperate people in the country don't have the money to make up for your wants.

Please note that a student costs more to educate in a year than a it costs to provide health care for a person and no child is left behind and they don't have to pay a penny to get their education, but you want them to pay for their health care?

This program is about your money and protecting the middle class at the expense of the poorest...like much public policy, it is just marketed so you don't think about it....and you don't.

But I mentioned averages and this is above most of the folks here mathwise, so perhaps LJ is right just move on and protect your class.

Wouldn't a single payer system solve many of thoses issues through set payment amounts for procedures and services much like Medicare does? Medicare is now refused at some places because they can get much more out of insurance companies. If that option was taken away prices should deflate considerably.