Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

Henrin · May 22, 2013

Boo Radley said:
This actually is a government of the people by he people. However, today that means wealthy people. Money is free speech and more money means more speech, more influence. The using and capitulation works both ways between government and earthy, but the money s are largest problem.

What does that have to do with democrats passing a healthcare reform law in very clear opposition to what the people wanted? The only part of the law that you could say was influenced by money is the mandate to buy health insurance, but in reality it was just a way to shift blame to the republicans.

Boo Radley · May 22, 2013

Henrin said:
What does that have to do with democrats passing a healthcare reform law in very clear opposition to what the people wanted? The only part of the law that you could say was influenced by money is the mandate to buy health insurance, but in reality it was just a way to shift blame to the republicans.

If you look at polling honestly, it wasn't in opposition to what people wanted. People wanted everything in the bill but he mechanism to pay for it. Because people choose to join the tea party histeria, once gain the door was open to work with money, and insurance moaners had more influence than they should have.

That is how the comments realate.

Henrin · May 22, 2013

Boo Radley said:
If you look at polling honestly, it wasn't in opposition to what people wanted. People wanted everything in the bill but he mechanism to pay for it. Because people choose to join the tea party histeria, once gain the door was open to work with money, and insurance moaners had more influence than they should have.

That is how the comments realate.

No, if I look at the polling data, the law was undesirable even with the public option or UHC added. It only got worse when the mandate was added is all. There is no proof what so ever that the democrats added the mandate for money or to help insurance businesses, but I suppose if you want to ignore how they been using it since you could make that argument.

Boo Radley · May 22, 2013

Henrin said:
No, if I look at the polling data, the law was undesirable even with the public option or UHC added. It only got worse when the mandate was added is all. There is no proof what so ever that the democrats added the mandate for money or to help insurance businesses, but I suppose if you want to ignore how they been using it since you could make that argument.

Then you're not looking at it, but are making things up.

ReformCollege · May 22, 2013

Boo Radley said:
As promised, did look at Singapore. A few things of note:

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls.

(The other two elements would face major resistance here, but would be necessary for this plan.)

The increasingly large private sector provides care to those who are privately insured, foreign patients, or public patients who are able to afford what often amount to very large out-of-pocket payments above the levels provided by government subsidies.

(A second system, as could be done with any universal payer system).

Approximately 70-80% of Singaporeans obtain their medical care within the public health system. Overall government spending on healthcare amounts to only 3-4% of annual GDP, partly because government expenditure on healthcare in the private system is extremely low.

(Also something that could happen with any single payer system.)

Healthcare in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article suggests the elderly are presenting same problems for them as for us:

Healthcare For The Elderly: Can And Should We Do More?

Also from your source "Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt.[3] The government regularly adjusts policies to actively regulate "the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" in an attempt to keep costs in check. However, for the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care. These costs are largely subject to market forces, and vary enormously within the private sector, depending on the medical specialty and service provided."

ReformCollege · May 22, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Do you know how many people complain about a lack of doctors. You really should talk to some of the conservatives around here who say we can't treat those needing treatment due to a lack of doctors.

But yes, doctors are small in number, but contribute significantly to cost. One thing being done tom lower costs is to have treats not requiring a physician done by less costly personnel.

I will look up Singapore later, but I'm not sure how comparable they are. But I will investigate.

No American wait times are not significantly shorter. Nor is technology equal o better care, just more expensive care. The wealthy do well here, true. But poorer consumers don't. There is a real inequality in the treatment of Americans.

As for you being robbed, none of us know the future. I remember a similar argument from an old political forum user, Missouri Mule, great guy, who saw his circumstances change and thus led to him modifying his view. It could happen to you or any of as well.

Yes we have a lack of doctors. I'm just saying, the last thing we should do is open the flood gates and just let everyone and their grandmother get into medical school. Besides, their are other ways to reduce this lack of doctors without actually getting more doctors. Reducing excessive healthcare consumption (a lot of which may be brought on because of insurance), and improving public health (reducing obesity and diabetes etc) are just some of the ways.

Technology is better, and wait times are shorter. Which is why we have better healthcare outcomes in things such as cancer and more Americans get the necessary care for things such as heart conditions, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Look it up.

ReformCollege · May 22, 2013

Boo Radley said:
It's actually harder and more expensive to provide it or the most needy than it is for everyone. There is a reason why insurance companies really only want healthy people. We spend more because we have no actual system, and doing things ad hoc as hospitals and healthcare professionals do allow for a lot of overcharging. Ask yourself if a bandaid that us no different than found in a box of band aids at any store for less than $2 is really $16 dollars for each single bandaid at a hospital. This price shifting under a real system would end.

No one is supposed to pay the sticker price at a hospital. Hospitals are contracted to give "discounts" to insurance companies on services provided. Also that band-aid has to pay for services provided, necessary staffing to maintain the hospital, and also to make up for free hospital care given away. But I agree, differential pricing under a hospital setting shouldn't be legal. It shouldn't cost 4 times as much to get a procedure without insurance as it does with insurance. That literally makes no sense.

But my point stands. You're delusional if you think that it costs less to provide for half the population then it does for the whole population. That is, without quality being compromised.

Boo Radley · May 22, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Also from your source "Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt.[3] The government regularly adjusts policies to actively regulate "the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" in an attempt to keep costs in check. However, for the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care. These costs are largely subject to market forces, and vary enormously within the private sector, depending on the medical specialty and service provided."

I know. But I didn't want you to miss the other elects that on tribute to that ranking (6th I believe, behind single payer systems like France's if I'm not mistaken). And it still involves price controls and government makes decisions all the same.

Boo Radley · May 22, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Yes we have a lack of doctors. I'm just saying, the last thing we should do is open the flood gates and just let everyone and their grandmother get into medical school. Besides, their are other ways to reduce this lack of doctors without actually getting more doctors. Reducing excessive healthcare consumption (a lot of which may be brought on because of insurance), and improving public health (reducing obesity and diabetes etc) are just some of the ways.

Technology is better, and wait times are shorter. Which is why we have better healthcare outcomes in things such as cancer and more Americans get the necessary care for things such as heart conditions, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Look it up.

Never suggested it was either or, but only hat it s arbitrary and the profession artificially controls the market his way.

And no, the technology is not always better, or even a plus. In fact, it is often overused leading to worse outcomes. Nor are wait times overall significantly better (wealthy have better wait times).

Boo Radley · May 22, 2013

ReformCollege said:
No one is supposed to pay the sticker price at a hospital. Hospitals are contracted to give "discounts" to insurance companies on services provided. Also that band-aid has to pay for services provided, necessary staffing to maintain the hospital, and also to make up for free hospital care given away. But I agree, differential pricing under a hospital setting shouldn't be legal. It shouldn't cost 4 times as much to get a procedure without insurance as it does with insurance. That literally makes no sense.

But my point stands. You're delusional if you think that it costs less to provide for half the population then it does for the whole population. That is, without quality being compromised.

It makes sense for exactly the reason you stated, the care given without payment received. The only trouble is no one knows exactly how much that is or if this overcharging actually covers it.