US Adverts on National Healthcare

Hmmm...this article sounds more accurate to me

Of course it does; it blames the Democrats.  Keep pointing fingers, that'll get things done.   

Do I feel that healthcare reform needs to happen--OF COURSE....

...I think that the current bill on the table isn't clear enough in how it will be administered, and I'm not in favor of the government controlling healthcare.

I assume you mean "I don't want the government deciding what treatment I get,"....

No, I mean government having the power to regulate healthcare....

Sorry, I was just looking through this thread and read this again.  If you're in favor of health care reform, and you don't want the government to be the entity to decide how the health care system should be reformed, what entity do you propose to do it?

In other words, if you had your choice, who'd reform the system?

In other words, if you had your choice, who'd reform the system?

And if it's not the government, how do you propose the mystery entity they are might be compelled to make changes to what must be, to them, a pretty decent status quo? Cause insurance industry is not really known for self-regulation, much less voluntary self-regulation.

The August 31st issue of The New Yorker has a good explanation of why Americans say they want health care reform, but why half of those polled say they disapprove of the current plan to do so.

The article continues here.

Very good article, I'd heard the study using the basketball tickets before

Of course it does; it blames the Democrats.  Keep pointing fingers, that'll get things done.   

Carl, it is written by a liberal Dem and is written fairly. The Dems are the group in TOTAL charge at the moment, btw, and they've done a very poor job presenting this bill to the people. They're not united as a party behind it and are sending mixed messages all over the place.

Carl, it is written by a liberal Dem and is written fairly. The Dems are the group in TOTAL charge at the moment, btw, and they've done a very poor job presenting this bill to the people. They're not united as a party behind it and are sending mixed messages all over the place.

{sarcasm} Yeah, I suppose what they ought to do is ignore the Republicans, ignore regular citizens who disagree with their ideas, only allow their supporters into the town hall meetings, go on television and all repeat the same talking points over and over, ram whatever they want down everyone's throat, and no matter what happens, say they've accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish.  As you say, being in TOTAL charge means never having to listen to the other side.

That worked really well when the Republicans did it for the Iraq War, so it ought to work just fine for health care. {/sarcasm}

Any plans to tell us who you think ought to be in charge of reforming health care, if not the government?

Right -- it would also probably help with the "selling" if the other side could just stop willfully lying about it. Or setting up NHS-sized strawmen.

"If it was so good, they could sell it" does have a flipside that "if the opposition argument was so great, they'd just say it instead of fearmongering and obfuscating and causing their pants to burst into flames periodically."

Any plans to tell us who you think ought to be in charge of reforming health care, if not the government?

Well, there are some other ideas out there, and I do like this alternative:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home

Well, there are some other ideas out there, and I do like this alternative:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home

What do you like about it?

Well, there are some other ideas out there, and I do like this alternative:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home

Have you read that proposal? The price tag for one section of it (the 'supplemental debit card program' on §411 is over $125 billion between 2011 and 2015. First off, that's not fiscally responsible spending. Secondly, it's more 'socialist' (especially this 'supplemental debit card program' that gives people pre-paid credit cards for healthcare costs) than the Democrat bill. Third (and this one also hits the Dem bill), it doesn't allow the government-run healthcare (Medicare, the 'public option', whatever) to negotiate prices which is one of the factors that have led to increases in healthcare costs over the last 5 years (thanks to the Medicare Modernisation Act in 2003).

Have you read that proposal? The price tag for one section of it (the 'supplemental debit card program' on §411 is over $125 billion between 2011 and 2015. First off, that's not fiscally responsible spending. Secondly, it's more 'socialist' (especially this 'supplemental debit card program' that gives people pre-paid credit cards for healthcare costs) than the Democrat bill. Third (and this one also hits the Dem bill), it doesn't allow the government-run healthcare (Medicare, the 'public option', whatever) to negotiate prices which is one of the factors that have led to increases in healthcare costs over the last 5 years (thanks to the Medicare Modernisation Act in 2003).

I think the bill has many good points, but we'll see what happens. It does claim to be cost neutral, but we'd have to wait and see what the CBO says. The point is reforming healthcare to be more affordable for everyone, preserve the quality of care we enjoy, and have more freedom of choice. Here is a direct quote from the Q&A section:

15. You seem to make a lot of promises about universal health care, as well as investments in prevention and health IT. How much will your plan cost the American taxpayer?

The Patient’s Choice Act is budget neutral. We anticipate a cost estimate will demonstrate revenue-neutrality as well, meaning net taxes will decline, or remain at their current level, costing the American taxpayers no additional money. The legislation will redirect tax dollars, leveling the playing field so every American has access to affordable health insurance. Official cost estimates have been requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation

I think the bill has many good points, but we'll see what happens. It does claim to be cost neutral, but we'd have to wait and see what the CBO says. The point is reforming healthcare to be more affordable for everyone, preserve the quality of care we enjoy, and have more freedom of choice. Here is a direct quote from the Q&A section:

15. You seem to make a lot of promises about universal health care, as well as investments in prevention and health IT. How much will your plan cost the American taxpayer?

The Patient’s Choice Act is budget neutral. We anticipate a cost estimate will demonstrate revenue-neutrality as well, meaning net taxes will decline, or remain at their current level, costing the American taxpayers no additional money. The legislation will redirect tax dollars, leveling the playing field so every American has access to affordable health insurance. Official cost estimates have been requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation

Doing nothing would also be budget-neutral but hardly solves the issue. As far as i can see, the only thing of substance amongst all the pious talk is a $2.3k tax credit for an individual to get insurance. I don't see how that would "level the playing field" much with employer provided insurance, given that policies typically costs far more than this. And as far as I can see the proposal is entirely silent as far as what the tax treatment of employer-provided insurance would be.

It has nothing to do with choosing to go private.  If you have been paying into a government scheme on the understanding that certain things will be covered, now when you need those things they are not, then you are being forced to pay again.

What are you talking about though? The understanding that WHAT is covered?

The things which people were told by the government would be covered. 

Besides, that is exactly what they DO do! Google "recission" for a real horrorshow! They will take your premiums for years and then when you need it, they will yank the coverage!

Then isn't that more an argument for tightening up on the insurance companies to get them to fulfill their contractural obligations, rather than for the government to take over the whole show?   

Well, I happened to be reading newspaper archives for other reasons, and remembered Paul claim about broken promises with the NHS.  Apparently, prescription drugs always had what Americans would call a copay in England under the NHS.

I linked to the rates over the years above.  Here it is again:

http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/prescriptioncharges.pdf

How can something be taken away (care without out of pocket costs) which people never had?  If there were overt, solid promises that Joe and Jane Bloggs would never have to pay anything for any care other than the frivolous, why isn't there outrage then? 

Among older people who remember the promises from the early days of the NHS, there is.    There was a clear implication that after the post-war years of austerity the aim was to provide all these things "free," acknowledged in Attlee's speech about having to "take it steady" at first until the system could become established.

None of this discussion is helped by the fact that almost the entire population of the UK including virtually everyone on this board is under the misapprehension that National Insurance is 'National Health Insurance'.

It isn't. NI contributions entitle you to a state pension, some sickness & disability benefits, maternity benefit, some unemployment benefit (without means testing) and a few obscure industrial injury payments.  There are plenty of issues surrounding whether we are getting what we thought we we paying for but it's nothing to do with the NHS.

The NHS is funded from general taxation.

Isn't it still the case that a small portion of N.I. payments is diverted directly into the NHS, or has that changed in recent years?

Not that it makes a lot of difference really, since N.I. is just an income tax in disguise and there seems to be practically no demarcation of these various taxes anymore (just as the "road fund licence" no longer actually pays for the upkeep of the roads, for example).

Among older people who remember the promises from the early days of the NHS, there is.    There was a clear implication that after the post-war years of austerity the aim was to provide all these things "free," acknowledged in Attlee's speech about having to "take it steady" at first until the system could become established.

Oh good lord, move ON and let the past go. Why must people live clinging to the past so??

And from an insiders point of view, that's what's needed to make a decent system work - a willingness by people to be flexible and to change the way they think. Just because it's there and it's free doesn't mean you should use it for every little thing. Culture change needs to happen big time if ANY "free at the point of use" system is going to work. The worried well need to stop clogging up GP offices asking for referrals for every little niggling worry and mothers need to stop asking for appointments for children who need Calpol or have nits. There are two basic, fundamental responsibilities here - on the people providing quality, affordable health care and on the people using it who need to take some responsibility for themselves as well.

Oh good lord, move ON and let the past go. Why must people live clinging to the past so??

And from an insiders point of view, that's what's needed to make a decent system work - a willingness by people to be flexible and to change the way they think. Just because it's there and it's free doesn't mean you should use it for every little thing. Culture change needs to happen big time if ANY "free at the point of use" system is going to work. The worried well need to stop clogging up GP offices asking for referrals for every little niggling worry and mothers need to stop asking for appointments for children who need Calpol or have nits. There are two basic, fundamental responsibilities here - on the people providing quality, affordable health care and on the people using it who need to take some responsibility for themselves as well.

Plus, the older people who remember it all being free ARE still getting it free - prescriptions, dentists, eye care,  etc. So once again your example falls flat.

Things change.  There are loads of things that weren't even possible -IVF, plastic surgery, cancer treatment, transplants, that weren't even POSSIBLE when the NHS started.  Are you saying that those things shouldn't be covered because they weren't laid out in the original plan?  Of course not.  Give up this ridiculous argument.