Obama Care

Quality of care will decrease because:

1) Wait times for appointments will get much longer, wait times for procedures (like knee replacement) will get much much longer. The supply of physicians and facilities is not increasing, but demand for these services will. That inevitably results in a logjam.

2) Reimbursement to hospitals and physicians from commercial insurers (people who currently have insurance) will get phased downward over time to a more homogenous rate. Right now, physicians practice where the money is, in other words they locate their offices where most patients have good insurance. With so many previously uninsured patients gaining coverage, and with reimbursement homogenizing across payers, doctors will migrate to areas where most people are located. If you make a decent living and your neighborhood reflects that, then some of your physicians will be leaving the area. This will happen over time, not suddenly.

3) Over time, changes to the reimbursement structure will incent hospitals to treat minor issues as opposed to major, equipment-intensive illnesses. They will not have the same incentive to invest in state of the art technology. You'll have fewer choices when it comes to destinations to receive the state of the art care for the most serious of problems.

And many others.

Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

I know people love using the Canadian system as an example, and it may be one to model, but I still ask for an example where the country has similar demands and structures to the US. If you are going to include countries who fall under our defense shield, as Canada does, then please realize that their Government's obligations are substantially less. and if we are going to do this type thing, and significantly reduce defense spending, then lets start by doing the reductions and getting our budget in line.

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Nice, but irrelevant dodge. Unless you want to plead ignorance to the effects that the diversity of the US culture has on healthcare demands.

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Saden, I thought you liked numbers, and yet you seemed to ignore some basic math that I posted. Remember this is using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -

The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.

The current discretionary budge = 1,182billion dollars.

** assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending

11,600/200 = 53 years.

add in a projected deficit of 400billion this year,

then we would be adding 200billion to our national debt yearly. And that is BEFORE any new healthcare.

so, again, I will say, how do you Saden, who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.[/QUOTE]

Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.

My health services I feel have become better over the past few years and my biggest complant is the cost of my insurance which I'm switching to a plain that better fits my needs. While people brushed off the Massachusetts problems with their health plan Obama himself said his plan is alot like what they have done. If you look at what they wanted to accomplish in Massachusetts and compared to what Obama says he wants do to it like a mirror image of each other. It seems people ignore that it has done the complete opposite of what their health Ins reform was intended to do. But why look at ugly numbers from a great example if it gets in your way.

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Throw Turkey, Serbia, and Croatia, and maybe we could see a reasonable comparison.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.
Now your getting it! And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention. Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

Saden, I thought you liked numbers, and yet you seemed to ignore some basic math that I posted. Remember this is using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -

The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.

The current discretionary budge = 1,182billion dollars.

** assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending

11,600/200 = 53 years.

add in a projected deficit of 400billion this year,

then we would be adding 200billion to our national debt yearly. And that is BEFORE any new healthcare.

so, again, I will say, how do you Saden, who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.[/quote]

I'm only one guy vs so many of you lot and contrary to popular belief I do have a day job. Relax, your turn will come.

Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.

And most everyone here has been debating just these issues and the role of government and private enterprise in resolving them for pages on end. Has anyone taken the consistent position that the current status of health is not an issue of public health to be addressed? Schneed10 has consistently said the current system is stressed to the breaking.

In response to these discussions and outside a handful of posts you have been dismissive those who assert a different point of view than yours or who believe the solution lies outside a simple transference of wealth (either direct or indirect) to "take more peope into the system". In response to attempts to define the issue and identify the root causes in competition you blantantly dismiss legitimate economic theory as magic. Further, throughout this thread and similar threads, you have brought the assertion of hypocrisy in american history, wishes for death of those who disagree with you, and a blatantly causal attitude to the concerns that it is our children who be bearing the costs of our current greed to the discussion.

NOW after 29 pages, innumberable discusssions of the points raised in the above post, you "get it". Perhaps if you had come off your high horse earlier, admitted that your belief system may just not be infallible and considered points of view that did not necessarily fall with your self-approved economic and philosophical theories, you could have brought your considerable talents to constructive solutions rather than an arrogant dismissal of real questions that need to be addressed.

It's not that "There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother." It's that almost everything has a down side to it and, unless the discussion realizes and incorporates the underlying competing philosophies, it will not begin to cut the gordian knot that is the american health care system.

Come have some tea with me saden, I don't care if we use the kettle or the pot.