• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Question

Deuce said:
You want to NOT buy the 3% number. Find me an article that uses actual budget numbers and has a source for them.
Click to expand...

You made the claim now prove it

Edit: What I'm getting at is that THIS IS A MADE UP SCENARIO. YOU CANT PROVE THINGS BY MAKING UP NUMBERS. NUMBERS NEED A SOURCE OR THEY'RE JUST FICTION
 
Deuce said:
What does this even mean and how is that relevant to anything we're discussing?

This guy makes some assertion that I am just making things up about pharmaceutical research. That I "don't have a clue" how business works. It's asinine.

Pharma companies publicize what they spend (privately) on research.

The government publicizes how much they fund research.

Compare the two numbers.

It's not rocket science and you don't need 35 years of "business" experience to do it. What he's doing is known as ad hominem. Translated roughly: "attack against the person." Instead of trying to refute my numbers, he's trying to attack my credibility despite not having any basis for doing so. (he's just guessing wildly at my experience and education)

Even if I'm fourteen years old and haven't left the house, I'm stating facts. Reality does not have a liberal bias.
Click to expand...

These companies and their lobbyist went to the whitehouse to talk about the healthcare bill
 
Conservative said:
You made the claim now prove it

Edit: What I'm getting at is that THIS IS A MADE UP SCENARIO. YOU CANT PROVE THINGS BY MAKING UP NUMBERS. NUMBERS NEED A SOURCE OR THEY'RE JUST FICTION
Click to expand...

Well I didn't find the medicare report I had read previously but here's what an actual source looks like that supports my theory that government can in fact run things efficiently when done right.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

Scroll down to the "number of employees per 10,000 enrollees"

Total Medicare Beneficiaries - Kaiser State Health Facts

From here we see that Medicare has 44,831,390 enrollees.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services]Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Wikipedia says that CMS employs 4100 people.


Doing the math, that's 0.91 employees per 10,000 enrollments.
Aetna: 20.8
Anthem: 18.8
Cigna: 31.2
Humana: 22.5
Mid Atlantic Medical Services: 14.0
Oxford: 22.8
Pacificare: 24.2
United Healthcare: 35.1
WellPoint: 13.7

It's not the 3% number but you start to get the picture.
 
Deuce said:
You want to NOT buy the 3% number. Find me an article that uses actual budget numbers and has a source for them.

Edit: What I'm getting at is that THIS IS A MADE UP SCENARIO. YOU CANT PROVE THINGS BY MAKING UP NUMBERS. NUMBERS NEED A SOURCE OR THEY'RE JUST FICTION.
Click to expand...

You can put it all caps and repeat it dozens of times and he still won't get it.
 
Check.

Your move, Conservative.

(edit: round of beer says he goes back to saying those numbers are made up somehow and his business experience tells him so)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Check.

Your move, Conservative.

(edit: round of beer says he goes back to saying those numbers are made up somehow and his business experience tells him so)
Click to expand...


I like the bolded part of his reply to you; as that is a page out of his posting style.:rofl

quote conservative

Does it matter who posted it, what about the content? Always destroy the messenger and ignore the message, right? There are many other articles on Medicare Overhead but you want to buy the 3% number. That makes you naive
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Well I didn't find the medicare report I had read previously but here's what an actual source looks like that supports my theory that government can in fact run things efficiently when done right.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

Scroll down to the "number of employees per 10,000 enrollees"

Total Medicare Beneficiaries - Kaiser State Health Facts

From here we see that Medicare has 44,831,390 enrollees.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia says that CMS employs 4100 people.


Doing the math, that's 0.91 employees per 10,000 enrollments.
Aetna: 20.8
Anthem: 18.8
Cigna: 31.2
Humana: 22.5
Mid Atlantic Medical Services: 14.0
Oxford: 22.8
Pacificare: 24.2
United Healthcare: 35.1
WellPoint: 13.7

It's not the 3% number but you start to get the picture.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you post a 2003 study and then use those numbers to compare against 2008 beneficiaries. Also very interesting that you claim that for profit companies have inflated expenses which affect profits but non profit agencies have lower overhead thus expenses yet are basically bankrupt. Does any of that make sense to you?

You certainly have something against private business and for some reason believe that for profit companies are ineffecient but govt. agencies are somehow effecient but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Here is another article again that you will attack the messenger instead of the message

Medicare’s Overhead Medicine and Opera

The problem you have and continue to have is there is no evidence that the Federal govt. can do any social engineering better than private industry. There is no credible evidence comparing private insurance expenses to govt. run agency expenses. What we do know is part of the govt. funding for their healthcare program comes from cutting Medicare expenses by 500 billion dollars. Where are those expense cuts coming from when overhead is so low?

Think, I know you can do it.
 
misterman said:
You can put it all caps and repeat it dozens of times and he still won't get it.
Click to expand...

:rofl sounds a lot like the budget discussion that you continue to ignore. Obama added 1.47 trillion to the debt in 2009, will add 1.6 trillion this year, 1.3 trillion next year which in three years will exceed the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. How is that hope and change working out for you?
 
There...there weren't any numbers in that article. :confused:

I posted links to verifiable numbers and peer-reviewed journals, and you posted another link to someone's blog that didn't contain any actual data.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
There...there weren't any numbers in that article. :confused:

I posted links to verifiable numbers and peer-reviewed journals, and you posted another link to someone's blog that didn't contain any actual data.
Click to expand...

That is the point, there aren't any numbers in what you offered either nor is there any logic and common sense thus you remain gullible to Govt. rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
That is the point, there aren't any numbers in what you offered either nor is there any logic and common sense thus you remain gullible to Govt. rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Really. You couldn't find any numbers in my post or my links?

No numbers. You're saying there were no numbers.


edit: I figured it out. You're like Stephen Colbert. A caricature of a conservative. Except you aren't funny.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Really. You couldn't find any numbers in my post or my links?

No numbers. You're saying there were no numbers.

Should I put them in bold for you?
Click to expand...

Oh, I found numbers, I found a 2003 report and you applied those to 2008 participation. You cannot compare private industry personnel to Medicare personnel until you define the services provided by both. Govt. employees are dedicated to Medicare whereas private insurance employees do various jobs in all facets of the company they work for. Only a true ideologue can apply all private insurance employees to one segment of the business and call that excessive.

You can make numbers do whatever you want them to do but until you define the parameters those numbers are meaningless. Govt. overhead is different than private insurance overhead just like govt. costs for services is different than private industry costs for service. Keep spinning them in the government's favor when the reality is you continue to ignore the 500 billion that is going to be cut from Medicare. How can any govt. business with such low overhead have 500 billion available to cut?
 
So there are numbers now. Nice backpedal.

Ok, so lets say it's not a totally fair comparison. You're still off by a factor of more than ten. I'll tell you what, we'll be extremely generous and go with the entire social security administration. 64,000 employees. You still end up with 14 employees per 10,000 enrollments, equal to the best of the private businesses and less than half that of the worst. And the majority of the 60,000 people we just added have absolutely nothing to do with Medicare.

I already addressed the $500billion number, but you ignored it because that's your strawman. You're attacking a point that I never made. How can they cut $500 billion? I don't know. I don't think you can. I've already said I don't buy those numbers. You conveniently skimmed over that so you could repost this again.
 
Deuce said:
So there are numbers now. Nice backpedal.

Ok, so lets say it's not a totally fair comparison. You're still off by a factor of more than ten. I'll tell you what, we'll be extremely generous and go with the entire social security administration. 64,000 employees. You still end up with 14 employees per 10,000 enrollments, equal to the best of the private businesses and less than half that of the worst. And the majority of the 60,000 people we just added have absolutely nothing to do with Medicare.

I already addressed the $500billion number, but you ignored it because that's your strawman. You're attacking a point that I never made. How can they cut $500 billion? I don't know. I don't think you can. I've already said I don't buy those numbers. You conveniently skimmed over that so you could repost this again.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't post the 500 billion dollar number but Congress did. The Senate Bill is paid for as they say by cuts in Medicare, the waste, fraud, and abuse. The question you should be asking is where that waste, fraud, and abuse comes from.

You are the one that seems to believe because of a trumped up, distorted overhead number that the Govt. can operate healthcare better than the private sector but your numbers aren't comparing the same things.

You don't know what the private sector employees do but we do know that Medicare employees are dedicated to Medicare. Anyone that believes govt. runs anything more effeciently than private industry is naive, gullible, and very, very misinformed.

You want badly to believe that Govt. run healthcare is going to be effecient, more cost effective, and offer better services but history refutes your opinions.
 
Conservative said:
You want badly to believe that Govt. run healthcare is going to be effecient, more cost effective, and offer better services but history refutes your opinions.
Click to expand...

What history?

We've never tried it in our country so there's no history here.

Every country that HAS tried it spends far less than we do and covers 100% of the population.

You'll have to work me through how they are less cost effective. I assert that the are actually more cost-effective.

Canadians, for example, spend fewer tax dollars on healthcare per-capita than we do. They don't have to pay out of pocket for health insurance premiums, because their taxes cover health insurance.

As far as better quality, I'll head off what I already know you're going to say. Waiting times. It's cherry-picked data. You'll always hear it referencing Canadian elective surgeries, usually hip replacement, or in the UK. Did you know that Germany, France, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, and Australia all have shorter waiting times than we do?
 
Conservative said:
:rofl sounds a lot like the budget discussion that you continue to ignore. Obama added 1.47 trillion to the debt in 2009,
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Obama was responsible for all of 1.47 trillion in debt in 2009? Is that what you're saying exactly?
 
QUOTE]Deuce;1058548673]What history?

We've never tried it in our country so there's no history here.[/QUOTE]

How in the world did the budget of the Unites States grow to its current 3.8 trillion dollar level? How much of the State Government is duplicated at the Federal Level? What history? History of waste, fraud, abuse, and high debt. The record of the govt. shows exactly how they would run healthcare, no regard for cost and no regard for quality.

Every country that HAS tried it spends far less than we do and covers 100% of the population.
Click to expand...

Prove it, you look at the costs you are given, not the cost that citizens of other countries pay. Most countries have higher income taxes, a VAT tax, higher gasoline taxes all in countries less populous than ours. There is also high unemployment and low economic growth in real dollars vs what we have here. Is that really what you want in this country?

You'll have to work me through how they are less cost effective. I assert that the are actually more cost-effective.
Click to expand...

Your assertions are based upon biased sources and selective numbers that do not provide an accurate comparison.

Canadians, for example, spend fewer tax dollars on healthcare per-capita than we do. They don't have to pay out of pocket for health insurance premiums, because their taxes cover health insurance.
Click to expand...

Sure they do because their true costs are disguised in the taxes they pay.


As far as better quality, I'll head off what I already know you're going to say. Waiting times. It's cherry-picked data. You'll always hear it referencing Canadian elective surgeries, usually hip replacement, or in the UK. Did you know that Germany, France, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, and Australia all have shorter waiting times than we do?
Click to expand...

People really never have an idea regarding quality until you actually experience the service. My wife battled Cancer last year and the service she received from private insurance was absolutely incredible. Fortunately she is doing great and is a ringing endorsement for private care and private insurance.

I don't know where you get your data and why it is more credible than sources that refute your claims. You willingly give other countries the benefit of doubt without experiencing the costs and problems that are either being ignored or covered up. I will take the healthcare system of the greatest country on the face of the earth and speak from experience of being in that system. Yours is one of book smart street stupid book data which is the liberal way where you are an expert on what other people need.

Before making those drastic changes you seem to THINK are of value, you would be better served getting both sides of the issue. Right now your youthful inexperience says a lot about you and the problems we really face in this country. Liberal arrogance does not allow you to see the forest for the trees.
 
misterman said:
So you are saying that Obama was responsible for all of 1.47 trillion in debt in 2009? Is that what you're saying exactly?
Click to expand...

The debt of 2009 is on the Obama record just like the debt of 2001 is on the Bush record. The difference is Bush wasn't in the Congress and didnt vote for the spending that Obama voted for while in the Senate.

No one can vote for spending then place blame for that spending when as you pointed out Congressional authorizations have to be spent unless the President asks to reduce the spending.

GW Bush was in office October 2008 to January 2009 and is responsible for some of the deficit but the greatest share goes to Obama especially since he voted for TARP and was left 350 billion of that funding to spend. How much of the 350 billion that Bush spent was repaid?
 
Conservative said:
The debt of 2009 is on the Obama record just like the debt of 2001 is on the Bush record. The difference is Bush wasn't in the Congress and didnt vote for the spending that Obama voted for while in the Senate.

No one can vote for spending then place blame for that spending when as you pointed out Congressional authorizations have to be spent unless the President asks to reduce the spending.

GW Bush was in office October 2008 to January 2009 and is responsible for some of the deficit but the greatest share goes to Obama especially since he voted for TARP and was left 350 billion of that funding to spend. How much of the 350 billion that Bush spent was repaid?
Click to expand...

Please answer the question. It's a yes or no.
 
Conservative said:
Prove it, you look at the costs you are given, not the cost that citizens of other countries pay. Most countries have higher income taxes, a VAT tax, higher gasoline taxes all in countries less populous than ours. There is also high unemployment and low economic growth in real dollars vs what we have here. Is that really what you want in this country?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how these numbers are calculated.

# of dollars spent on healthcare in Canada
divide by number of citizens of Canada.

It's not "hidden in taxes." In fact, tax dollars are far easier to track than dollars in private industry. The Canadian government tracks the spending of its Medicare program. Haven't you figured out yet that I've done my research? You really think I haven't looked at spending in other countries?

Actually, let me answer that question for you. You don't care. Nobody reading this, if anyone still is, thinks you do. They've all come to one of two conclusion:

1) You're what the internet forum world calls a "troll." This is the obvious conclusion. You post for the sole purpose of annoying people. Fortunately, I don't respond for your sake so this doesn't bother me.

2) You're incapable of actual debate. You even said it yourself, "I'll never change my mind."

It really doesn't matter to me. Like I said, I don't write all this for you. I write it for the open-minded people who are willing to challenge their own assumptions. That's what I did. I used to think UHC was a pipe dream. It would be too expensive, too inefficient, there's no way it would work here. Then I read some things and heard some things that shed a little doubt on that belief. I took that, and went looking for more opinions and more information. I found it and changed my mind. That's what being open-minded is.

I do all this for those people, not some troll.

But don't think I wrote all that and ignored your moving goalposts. You want more?

Core Health Indicators

Canada
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2410.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 3430.0 (2005)

US
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2862.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 6350.0 (2005)

On that website, you can click the tiny question mark if you want an explanation of terms or the source of the data.

As you can see, government expenditure per capita is actually higher in the US than in Canada, and the out-of-pocket expenditures for Canada are very low. (~$1000 per capita) Strikingly, US out-of-pocket expenditures are more than triple. ($~3500)

You can also measure in healthcare spending as % of GDP, or slightly adjust those numbers based on PPP (purchasing power parity, it accounts for the fact that a dollar in America doesn't buy as much as a dollar in Brazil, even with the exchange rate) However, it's not really worthwhile, as PPP numbers for Canada are nearly identical to the United States. (less than 1% difference)

So. I've now shown that Canada does in fact spend far less than we do while covering 100% of the population. Of course, you already knew that. I already knew that. Anybody's who's paid any attention to the debate so far already knew that because it's readily available public data and is talked about all the time.

By all means, continue putting your head in the sand. It gives me more inspiration to continue making my case for people who are undecided.

But let me guess: You don't believe these numbers either. Wait, I forgot, you don't care. Other people might, though.

(edit: grammar errors)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I don't think you understand how these numbers are calculated.

# of dollars spent on healthcare in Canada
divide by number of citizens of Canada.

It's not "hidden in taxes." In fact, tax dollars are far easier to track than dollars in private industry. The Canadian government tracks the spending of its Medicare program. Haven't you figured out yet that I've done my research? You really think I haven't looked at spending in other countries?

Actually, let me answer that question for you. You don't care. Nobody reading this, if anyone still is, thinks you do. They've all come to one of two conclusion:

1) You're what the internet forum world calls a "troll." This is the obvious conclusion. You post for the sole purpose of annoying people. Fortunately, I don't respond for your sake so this doesn't bother me.

2) You're incapable of actual debate. You even said it yourself, "I'll never change my mind."

It really doesn't matter to me. Like I said, I don't write all this for you. I write it for the open-minded people who are willing to challenge their own assumptions. That's what I did. I used to think UHC was a pipe dream. It would be too expensive, too inefficient, there's no way it would work here. Then I read some things and heard some things that shed a little doubt on that belief. I took that, and went looking for more opinions and more information. I found it and changed my mind. That's what being open-minded is.

I do all this for those people, not some troll.

But don't think I wrote all that and ignored your moving goalposts. You want more?

Core Health Indicators

Canada
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2410.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 3430.0 (2005)

US
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2862.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 6350.0 (2005)

On that website, you can click the tiny question mark if you want an explanation of terms or the source of the data.

As you can see, government expenditure per capita is actually higher in the US than in Canada, and the out-of-pocket expenditures for Canada are very low. (~$1000 per capita) Strikingly, US out-of-pocket expenditures are more than triple. ($~3500)

You can also measure in healthcare spending as % of GDP, or slightly adjust those numbers based on PPP (purchasing power parity, it accounts for the fact that a dollar in America doesn't buy as much as a dollar in Brazil, even with the exchange rate) However, it's not really worthwhile, as PPP numbers for Canada are nearly identical to the United States. (less than 1% difference)

So. I've now shown that Canada does in fact spend far less than we do while covering 100% of the population. Of course, you already knew that. I already knew that. Anybody's who's paid any attention to the debate so far already knew that because it's readily available public data and is talked about all the time.

By all means, continue putting your head in the sand. It gives me more inspiration to continue making my case for people who are undecided.

But let me guess: You don't believe these numbers either. Wait, I forgot, you don't care. Other people might, though.

(edit: grammar errors)
Click to expand...

Duece, I don't think you get it, I couldn't care less what other countries pay for healthcare and only care about what my family receives. I learned personal responsibility growing up and accept that. I don't expect you to pay for my healthcare nor do I expect to pay for yours. I have a family that I take care of.

You don't have a clue as to what other countries pay for healthcare or how much they receive in benefits. The numbers you get aren't verifiable nor do they matter. When you get sick all you care about is getting help.

As for being a troll, that is normally the response I get when I confuse those who want liberals running the healthcare system in this country. I ran a 200 million dollar business with over 1000 employees which of course doesn't give me any credibility at all.

You write a book and as I stated there is nothing you can say that will get me to support govt. run or controlled healthcare. The govt. by its nature is filled with bureaucrats and red tape that assures poor care or no care at all. You cannot add 30 million new people to the healthcare system and do it at a lower cost nor are there 30 million uninsured in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. Obviously you ignored that post.

Since my experience in the business world doesn't matter to you and you are hell bent on letting the govt. run your healthcare system, good luck to you because you are going to need it.
 
Conservative said:
nor are there 30 million uninsured in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. Obviously you ignored that post.
Click to expand...

I missed that post. Could you give me a link to it or could you explain here what you mean by there not being 30 million uninsured because they cannot afford healthcare?

Thanks.
 
reefedjib said:
I missed that post. Could you give me a link to it or could you explain here what you mean by there not being 30 million uninsured because they cannot afford healthcare?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

That is the claim, that there are 30 million uninsured people because they cannot afford health insurance. The U.S. Census Bureau refutes that and I have posted the link before. The fact is there are less than 10 million that cannot afford health insurance or about 3% of the population. Most have access to Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHP but don't sign up. Others can afford insurance but refuse to buy it.
 
reefedjib said:
I missed that post. Could you give me a link to it or could you explain here what you mean by there not being 30 million uninsured because they cannot afford healthcare?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

He means that some of those people can afford to get health insurance but choose not to. It's true.

Hey, Conservative. If a family in Canada has a sick family member, you're right, all they care about is getting help.

And they get it. They get to go to a doctor and not worry about whether they can pay the bill.

My numbers aren't verifiable? Well, I'm glad we have your "business" expertise to tell us that, because all these people who spend all this time doing research, conducting studies, publishing peer-reviewed papers, and gathering the data from government records, they're all wrong. All of them are just wrong or lying or whatever. Thank God we have you to tell us what really is happening.

Since numbers just aren't verifiable in your world, let's go this route: You say our current administration is spending 3.8 trillion. You've brought that number up a lot.

I don't believe you, that number isn't verifiable.
 
Man, these conservative debate tactics are so much easier I should just use them more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom