www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:The way I see it, they should just drop it for now. If we aren't going to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all.

If it does happen, regardless of whether I support the version that does pass or not I would rather see a reform happen that results in fixing the real problem and accomplishing something than one that only succeeds in fucking things up worse.

I'm genuinely curious: how would you suggest it be fixed (or what ideas have you heard that you like)?

Honestly nothing I've heard so far excites me. None of it addresses the root cause of the problem, medical costs.

I could always trot out the old stand-by of tort reform as an effort to reduce mal-practice insurance costs but I've heard various stories about the kind of actual impact that would have on costs ranging from "some" to "minimal". As distasteful as I find it for the moment I'm long on objects and short on ideas.

Tyyr wrote:I could always trot out the old stand-by of tort reform as an effort to reduce mal-practice insurance costs

Ha. I don't like the idea of marginalizing damages caused by blatant incompetence.

And some more of that.

Tyyr wrote:...As distasteful as I find it for the moment I'm long on objects and short on ideas.

I haven't exactly had an epiphany on the problem myself.

Tyyr wrote: I can find says health insurance companies have profit margins between 2.5 and 4%. I don't think that's excessive. Show me where these are excessive levels of profit.

You said yourself that that was the low end.

The congressional board where they interviewed all these health care people said profits are usually around 15%. And another 11% or so go towards bureaucracy. Compared to a government plan which would have nothing going towards profits and around 4% going towards bureaucracy.

A public option would make everyone's care cheaper. Even yours if you decided to stay with your current health care provider because your provider would have to lower costs to compete and streamline their care.

Monroe wrote:You said yourself that that was the low end.

Yes, the low end of profit margins for companies in general.

The congressional board where they interviewed all these health care people said profits are usually around 15%. And another 11% or so go towards bureaucracy.

Therefore about a 4% profit margin which is what I said.

Compared to a government plan which would have nothing going towards profits and around 4% going towards bureaucracy.

...HAHAHAHA

The government doing things cheaply and with minimal bureaucracy? You're hilarious. Come on this is a serious discussion, no jokes please. Good one though.

A public option would make everyone's care cheaper. Even yours if you decided to stay with your current health care provider because your provider would have to lower costs to compete and streamline their care.

No it wouldn't. Actual health care costs would be unchanged. You might see a small change in price but ultimately there's only so much fat to be trimmed and you're not going to see health care costs plummet. This is of course assuming that a public plan would play fair (it wouldn't) and actually hold itself to some kind of standard ( ) where it has to turn a profit so it's actual competition.

Rochey wrote:How about simply not selling anything that wasn't proven to be safe?

You know, a small number of people kill themselves every year because they drink to much water.

With Prozak it isn't like that's a medicine for treating warts. The people on it are already messed up. I don't even think the suicide rate among those taking it goes up. It just is that it seems it might not be as effective at stopping suicides as some other antipsychotics. Hence the bit about how they suggest pointing out that more people stop taking the other drugs when pitching to physicians i.e. Prozac is still better than nothing. It's also an odd article in that it sounds like they would have won the case in question.


Anyway I don't know enough about the prozac situation to comment except that it certainly seems drug companies take it in the shorts when they do put out something dangerous. But it seems they get crap they don't deserve (i.e. getting blamed for the fathers death)

Tyyr wrote: ...HAHAHAHA

The government doing things cheaply and with minimal bureaucracy? You're hilarious. Come on this is a serious discussion, no jokes please. Good one though.

Alright, I see this exact response from opponents of UHC a lot but I don't see any honest math to back it up. If the UK, Canada and the myriad of other countries can do it why can't the US? Is your government that fucking retarded?

Actually never mind I asked that, given what's happening they must be.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Alright, I see this exact response from opponents of UHC a lot but I don't see any honest math to back it up. If the UK, Canada and the myriad of other countries can do it why can't the US? Is your government that f***ing retarded?

They're touting a plan that will do nothing about actual costs, spend trillions of dollars we don't have, and still require people to pay for the government supplied insurance as the "solution" to the health care problem.

Yes, they really are that fucking retarded.

sunnyside wrote:...But it seems they get crap they don't deserve (i.e. getting blamed for the fathers death)

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough: this man was a pacifist; had never owned a gun. He saw psychiatrists, and was diagnosed with mild depression. He was never suicidal, or even remotely considered at risk. He started taking Prozac, and 6 months later, he was dead.

Hey, maybe multiple psychiatrists and everyone in his family just had him wrong.

I'd say some people don't want to give sh*t where sh*t is due.

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Alright, I see this exact response from opponents of UHC a lot but I don't see any honest math to back it up. If the UK, Canada and the myriad of other countries can do it why can't the US? Is your government that f***ing retarded?

The jibe at the beurocracy is that there are numerous instances of known excessive government beurocracies. I recall some impressive British ones *googles around a bit*, here we go.

"From 1914 to 1928, the number of ships in the Navy fell by 68 percent; the number of officers and men fell by 32 percent. And yet, during the same period, the number of dockyard officials and clerks in the Navy increased by 40 percent, while, even more outrageously, the number of Admiralty officials increased by over 78 percent. The annual rate of increase in the number of Admiralty officials, with little variation, was 5.6 percent. Parkinson takes another example from the British Colonial Office, from 1935 to 1954. In that period, the area and population of colonial territories remained about the same from 1935 to 1939, fell during the war until 1943, rose again until 1947, and then steadily decreased as Britain shed its Empire. And yet, in each of these two decades, the Colonial Office bureaucracy rose steadily in number by about 5.9 percent per year, regardless of what was happening in the scope of the alleged work to be done." (I believe the Colonial Office was it's largest when the colonies were the least, just before it was disbanded)

So most reasonably people have a level of concern about setting up a new beurocracy.

Also more on topic there is a difference between "doing it" and "doing it well." Again, you have the situation from the numbers I pulled up a while ago. Canada has some crazy wait times for the sort of things Tsu has. Where they really really suck, but aren't going to kill you. And also that Canadian occasionally down to the US when they really need timely care And again, on top of all that the Canda and UK lack the massive underclass America has, and has lower stats for things leading to medical problems (notably obesity).

I'm sure universal healthcare, even if managed poorly, would work fine in Beverly Hills 90210 or Sweden, but the US has to make it work in the ninth ward of New Orleans and southern Philly.

Tyyr wrote:

Monroe wrote:The congressional board where they interviewed all these health care people said profits are usually around 15%. And another 11% or so go towards bureaucracy.

Therefore about a 4% profit margin which is what I said.

I guess the whole concept of 'and another' is lost on you. 15% + 11% =/= 4%.
15% profits which the government does not care about.
11% overhead / bureaucracy

compared to 4% bureaucracy under the Public Option

Government option wins in cost effectiveness.

The government doing things cheaply and with minimal bureaucracy? You're hilarious. Come on this is a serious discussion, no jokes please. Good one though.

Yes cause the existing government medical care is soo complex.
I've had government ran health care. It is not complex. There are no insurance forms, there are no shuffling of who to talk to. Its treatment, bam done.

Actual health care costs would be unchanged. You might see a small change in price...

Did you just contradict yourself?

Only so much cost? You can gain a 22% saving between cheaper bearucracy of the government and no profit margin. Don't tell me that's not a sale worth getting.

Monroe wrote: Yes cause the existing government medical care is soo complex.
I've had government ran health care. It is not complex. There are no insurance forms, there are no shuffling of who to talk to. Its treatment, bam done.

Our system isn't quite so simple, you have to be registered as an NHS holder and then given a number. I think you have to have worked here for a year or so before being entitled to NHS care, I'm not sure though. Then its a case of, I fall ill, i go to hospital and get better. Done, ended. No money spent, NHS care provided. Bam. When I had Kawasaki's on 1999, i was carted off to St. Mary's Hospital Southamphton. diagnose, treatment. Kawasaki's is a particularly expensive one to treat if not on a health plan. It cost me nothing. We do have to pay for dental care, but its a damsight less than private. my privated dentist charged £400 to take my frigging teeth out for my brace. The quote from the NHS was about £90.

Reliant121 wrote:
Our system isn't quite so simple, you have to be registered as an NHS holder and then given a number. I think you have to have worked here for a year or so before being entitled to NHS care, I'm not sure though. Then its a case of, I fall ill, i go to hospital and get better. Done, ended. No money spent, NHS care provided. Bam. When I had Kawasaki's on 1999, i was carted off to St. Mary's Hospital Southamphton. diagnose, treatment. Kawasaki's is a particularly expensive one to treat if not on a health plan. It cost me nothing. We do have to pay for dental care, but its a damsight less than private. my privated dentist charged £400 to take my frigging teeth out for my brace. The quote from the NHS was about £90.

Oh Jeebus, no one better tell the Yanks that they might need an id card for this.

Reliant that's still vastly more simple than the current private care's structure.

If we had a national ID card they could work that into it. Which I totally support a national ID. Anyone who's ever worked in service would support it. Yeah I have the Missouri and Kansas licenses down pat but occasionally I get a fucked up one like Arizona. Or one that's difficult to read- like Kansas because they put the name in front of a water seal mark that reflects light so you can't read the damn thing. Or a military ID.

Having a national one would make things so much simple.