Jump to content

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 704
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Unlike insurance companies....only the salt of the earth works at those.

It's not about the quality of the people, its about the intentions and incentives. A private company has to stay afloat and must provide equilibrium or near equilibrium output. The government run program doesn't have those kind of budget constrains and is trying to provide a non-equilibrium output. The government run program is intentionally and inherently less efficient, but that's not its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why, of all things, health care should becomes a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run?

 

 

As opposed to you paying for it with your post tax income as are companies . And run by buisness whose main goal is bottom line profits?

 

 

As I understand it, the benefits from it will only affect a small amount of society and there are far more fundamental needs in life than guaranteed free medical attention. Given the limited nature of medical resources, the cost from Moral Hazard of of "free" medical care would also be high.

 

 

Actually the spin off is far reaching in costs finacial and societal. You do not end up with an under class of individuals that can not affored proper health care and only seek medical help when absolulty nessesary this cost the taxpayers more for treatment than prevention, also since individuals are more apt to seek medical care when initially ill there is less chance of them becoming severly ill and possibly spreading a contagius illness. There is no moral hazard as you are paying for it we know that and do not abuse it, it is not FREE, we pay for it with our taxes. The Gov't is the insurance company if the system is abused 2 things happen either service is cut or taxes go up. No different than what happens with health insurance in the U.S service is cut or premiums go up.

 

 

The whole, 'it would better if it were run by the government because of profits' reason doesn't fly. Not only does it contradict economics, but if that were the case the government should run everything, not just health care. Using Canada as an example due to higher efficiency doesn't make sense either, sometimes smaller systems are less complicated and less expensive to run. Systems with high marginal costs, like Medicine, are much more likely to experience diminishing returns to scale.

 

 

See this where most Americans do not understand the system. The Fed government does NOT run it. They regulate it. The provinces adminster the dispesrment of the funds to Health regions that are made up of non profit organizations and regional health managment organizations.

 

The system is not govenement run but Gov't funded/insured and regulated.

 

By doing this you do not end up with a bloated Gov't run system, it is kept lean and efficiant.

 

Health regions can save dollars on equipment as well through economies of scale they can order supplies through the Province that buys in huge bulk from medical suppliers or if they can swing a better deal themselvs they can go that route. They are given budgets just like any health facility here or in the states and are expeted to operate within them. And are audited regualarly for both cost efficiances and quality of care.

 

Just remember only 1% of the health dollars spent in Canada are spent on administration and overhead the rest of it goes in to actual health care. Compared to 31% spent on overhead in the U.S. So our Gov't funded and regulated system is many many times more effciant than the U.S system.

 

You pay for your health care just as we do here. It is not free.

 

Canadians see health care as an essential service. It is as important as the Police, Fire Department, & Military. Now really would you privitize the Police the Fire Departments or the Military ? Health Care is as important to the security and well being of the nation as the Police Military and the Fire Departments are.

 

We have a different perpsective on health care here than most Americans do. Accsses to health care is guarenteed in our Constution just as is free speach and the right bear arms is in the U.S Bill of Rights.

 

Also we tend to trust our Gov't more here than Americans do but also our Gov't has not breached the trust of the taxpayers here to any where near the same degree as in the U.S

 

We can not exepct all Americans to understand it or agree with it but it is what it is and it works for us and provides us with an equivelent (and in some areas better) leval of care as in the U.S, plus every one is covered and costs considerably less per person to fund.

 

 

 

Matthew

Edited by matthewq4b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike insurance companies....only the salt of the earth works at those.

 

 

There is another evil. Why replace one evil with a worse one? Insurance companies will try to keep the cost of medical procedures high enough so that people can only afford them collectively, with the healthy paying as much as the sick. The solution is to go to the free market, user-pay system. Efficiencies would then be forced on the industry, instead of inefficiencies.

 

Once the government has control of your health, what more do they need to control? That is one of the last vestiges of freedom that you have left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top.

CBO: Senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years

 

....and it results in an estimated drop in the number of uninsured by 1/3. (leaving a net 36 Million uninsured).

 

That's $62,500 per person over 10 years. ($6,250 per person per year)

 

My healthcare plan costs my company less than $4,800 (per year) for the individual, and $10,800 per year for my family of four.

 

My (private) healthcare plan is less expensive even with UnitedHealthcare's profit built in.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top.

 

as with most any government run program the margin continues to shift of according to howmany administrators and assistants needed to run a program with no bottom end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with those numbers. There's no reason that the plan should be more. The US already has the second most expensive healthcare in the world.

 

Using the CBO's numbers....

 

$1 trillion divided by 16 million equals $62,500 per.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the CBO's numbers....

 

$1 trillion divided by 16 million equals $62,500 per.

 

 

and according to info I heard there is an other 39 mil still not covered. It just isn't feasible for the avarage tax payer to fund this. Especially now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBO: Senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years

 

....and it results in an estimated drop in the number of uninsured by 1/3. (leaving a net 36 Million uninsured).

 

That's $62,500 per person over 10 years. ($6,250 per person per year)

 

My healthcare plan costs my company less than $4,800 (per year) for the individual, and $10,800 per year for my family of four.

 

My (private) healthcare plan is less expensive even with UnitedHealthcare's profit built in.

 

 

That is for you and you alone. And do you copay like many individuals do in the states with company plans ? Also are you covered for every thing possible that could put you in the hopspital or to see the doctor. And those costs do nothing to alieviate the uninsured.

Also your company is paying it Giving them a huge disadvantage in the market place.

 

Also a portion of your taxes and the compnaies taxes are still going to cover the unisured. The totoal cost is not $4,800 per year per person. So your company gets to pay that to cover you, plus you and your company get to pay addtional $2,639 per year per year to cover one other individual that is not insured . So the totoal cost is not just $4,800 but an actual $7,439 per year. That is what the U.S spends per capita on health care $7,439. Compared to our $4,867 per year per capitia. Your health insurance costs for you alone not counting the addtional taxes collected from you or your company to cover the uninsured is only $87 less than what we pay per peson TOTAL to cover the whole nation.

 

So is it cheaper in the U.S, absolutly not.

 

Basically if the U.S adopted the same exact system as Canada then the exsisting costs to cover your self and have coverage for every person in the U.S would just be an addtional $87 dollars per year above the $4,800 your company already pays for you alone.

 

We sepnd 10% of our GDP on healthcare the U.S spends just over 16% of it's GDP on health care.

A full 60% more of the GDP than we do.

 

The figures do not lie. A person can twist it any they want and try to throw figures out there to try to make the U.S look more cost efective. But at the end of the day our system is still more cost effective in terms of dollars spent per capita and the percentage of the nations GDP that is spent on it.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

Edited by matthewq4b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as with most any government run program the margin continues to shift of according to howmany administrators and assistants needed to run a program with no bottom end.

The biggest problem with government anything, is there is no reason to be efficient.

 

A private company (presumably with competitors), has not only the profit motive to encourage efficiency, but the competition, as well. Would the U.S.P.S. be nearly as efficient if FedEx/UPS never existed? Doubt it.

 

The government has no competition, and its profit motive is its ability to tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is for you and you alone. And do you copay like many individuals do in the states with company plans? Also are you covered for every thing possible that could put you in the hopspital or to see the doctor. And those costs do nothing to alieviate the uninsured.

 

Matthew

I receive no government healthcare benefits so yes, I can compare them. You can't lump them together with what the country spends, because we are comparing the cost of the private vs. the government option.

 

I'm covered for things that I don't need; psychiatric care and pregnancy are the first ones that come to mind, but also in my State every health insurance policy must cover the costs of certain procedures (pap smears, breast exams, etc) at 100%. It doesn't make sense that, since I'm a male, that I must be covered for pap smears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When dealing with the lives of citizens and the quality of care, the government has every reason to try to be efficient....especially at the provincial (or state) level.

SUV, I really do understand your feelings here, and I agree that a doctor has motive to be efficient. A person directly providing the care will be very efficient and presumably good as what he does, because the more patients (even Medicaire patients) he sees, the more money he makes. Also, and lending to your point of view, any doctor (who values the Hippocratic Oath) will just care more, and try to use his skills and time wisely so he can do more good for his patients.

 

However, a bureaucracy (particularly a government-run bureaucracy) has no such motivation.

 

I can think of no government-run agency with monopoly power that operates efficiently, save for (MAYBE) the agencies that deal with public safety. (Fire, police, military)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I receive no government healthcare benefits so yes, I can compare them. You can't lump them together with what the country spends, because we are comparing the cost of the private vs. the government option.

 

I'm covered for things that I don't need; psychiatric care and pregnancy are the first ones that come to mind, but also in my State every health insurance policy must cover the costs of certain procedures (pap smears, breast exams, etc) at 100%. It doesn't make sense that, since I'm a male, that I must be covered for pap smears.

 

But you can not compare the cost of private to Govenment without includeding the addtional cost of covering those that have no coverage or inadequate coverage the system in the U.S it is not Govement run but government funded and privatly run for medicare. Also those are your premiums. I assume by the way you talk you are a healthy individual with no health concerns. What happens if you are diabetic or have a history of health related problems? That $4800 a year increass drastically or if you may not be elegible at all for coverage. And you never awnswered if you copay like most Americans do with company plans.

 

The Point is your $4800 a year is only $87 less than what we pay per person to cover the whole nation.

 

Rememebr these are insurance premiums and insurance is exactly that insurance you pay as per the risk you pose to a pay out.

Plus the Gov't still kicks in a portion of dollars for health care for R&D and expnasions in the from of Grants.

So to say that it only costs $4800per year is not correct. If you got to the hospital once you will still be using some Gov't funding for your care.

 

 

If you have never had a major illness then you are low risk and pay pemiums in realtion to that. That is why you can not just use one case to base an opinion.

 

The U.S spends $7439 per person in the U.S in healthcare that is not the govt paid portion but totoal costs across the nation private and Govt per capita. Remember the bulk of health care administered in the U.S is done in by private for profit facilities.

 

Again you can try to state the numbers any way you can, but the healthcare system in the states is a more costly and less efficiant to operate than any single user pay or universal system on the planet.

 

Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUV, I really do understand your feelings here, and I agree that a doctor has motive to be efficient. A person directly providing the care will be very efficient and presumably good as what he does, because the more patients (even Medicaire patients) he sees, the more money he makes. Also, and lending to your point of view, any doctor (who values the Hippocratic Oath) will just care more, and try to use his skills and time wisely so he can do more good for his patients.

 

However, a bureaucracy (particularly a government-run bureaucracy) has no such motivation.

 

I can think of no government-run agency with monopoly power that operates efficiently, save for (MAYBE) the agencies that deal with public safety. (Fire, police, military)

 

 

Again get off the Govt Run thing. Our health care system is run by health proffesionals and prvate non profit health organizations that are FUNDED by the Gov't. The Govt has little say in day to day operations other than to make sure that the health regions are meeting the care requirements and folowing the Heath Canada Guidlines. Our ministrys of health are very very small compared to the U.S on a percapita basis. As they are basically just a regulatory body to insure the Provinces (Federal Health Ministry) and health regions (Provincial Health Ministries) are meeting the minumum requirments. And this job is actually not as involved as one would think as most all the Provinces and Health Regions far exceeed the minmum requirements.

 

Matthew

Edited by matthewq4b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathew, the US spends more on medical research and development than Canada spends on its entire health care budget. Please stop trying to equate Canada and the US. Why is this issue so important to Canadians? Why can't you just leave us alone to figure out our own solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathew, the US spends more on medical research and development than Canada spends on its entire health care budget. Please stop trying to equate Canada and the US. Why is this issue so important to Canadians? Why can't you just leave us alone to figure out our own solution?

And your point is? What's the per capita expenditure? Considering the difference in population, it might turn out that Canada spends as much or more per person on medical research and development.

 

Why is this issue so important to Canadians?

 

Simple. We have our own conservative "free market" fascists, who continually strive for a "2-tier" health care system, where the rich can buy their way to the head of the line. So, we have to be vigilant.

 

As to your situation, it really is of minor interest to most Canadians, excapt that reading about the horror stories of what happens to those in poverty makes us appreciate how well our system works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teddy Care

 

 

Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive Federal

Database

-- And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward

this effort!

 

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org

 

 

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

 

At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care

system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.

 

It won't be pretty for your pocket book... OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

 

But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about.

 

At the center of the plan is what's called a "universal mandate." What

this means is that you -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will

have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that

insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.

 

If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on

your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost.

And, if the employer's contribution is too large, you will be fired.

 

If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the

IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and,

ultimately, put you in prison.

 

How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy's not

saying.

 

The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy's

latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH

CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW.

 

This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance,

the average family policy is currently $12,700. "So," proclaims Teddy,

"everyone's going to get a subsidy to pay for this." There's going to

be a "chicken in every pot," and no one's going to have to pay for it.

 

Yeah, right. If you're a welfare mother, the government will pay for

your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it -- the first time -- by taxing

employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a

"working Joe" your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic fraction of the

cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy.

 

Okay, all of this sounds ominous... but why is this a gun issue?

 

The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human

Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print

in every TeddyCare policy -- which you will be required to buy under

penalty of imprisonment.

 

Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other

factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of

computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting

them into a federal database.

 

So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun

collection? That would be in the federal database.

 

Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly

smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her

and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database.

 

Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had

emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the

database.

 

Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making

him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun

collection? That's in there too.

 

And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of

that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S

private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.

 

When we say "everyone," we don't mean quite everyone.

 

Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his

TeddyCare mandate.

 

Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don't want you to hear about

the details until after the bill is passed. That's why they're trying to

slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone's had a

chance to read or debate it.

 

In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol

Hill without even a bill number.

 

ACTION: Urge your two U.S. Senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy's

mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun

information.

 

Please forward this email to your friends and family and urge them to

contact their Senators as well.

 

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the

pre-written e-mail message below.

 

 

----- Pre-written letter -----

 

Dear Senator:

 

At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care

system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.

 

At the center of the TeddyCare plan is what's called a "universal

mandate." What this means is that I -- and virtually everyone in the

country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government

demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by

the government.

 

But this is not only an issue of individual freedom; it is a gun issue.

 

This is because Teddycare will allow radical left Health and Human

Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print

in every Teddycare policy -- which Americans will be required to buy

under penalty of imprisonment.

 

Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other

factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of

computerizing all of our most confidential medical records and putting

them into a federal database.

 

So if a kid is asked by his pediatrician about his dad's gun collection,

that would be in the federal database.

 

Or if a wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked

marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and her

husband from ever owning a gun again, that would be in the database.

 

Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had

emotional stress since coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, that would

be in the database.

 

Or when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a

"mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun

collection, that would be in there too.

 

And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of

that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S

private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.

 

You cannot imagine how angry I, my family, and my neighbors are about

this most recent fraud scheme to cheat me out of perhaps over $10,000

for TeddyCare -- and to violate my privacy in the process.

 

I insist that you oppose TeddyCare -- immediately and loudly. Please do

not try to shower me with propaganda about how a mandate on how I spend

my own money is somehow good for me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

****************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your situation, it really is of minor interest to most Canadians, excapt that reading about the horror stories of what happens to those in poverty makes us appreciate how well our system works.

 

 

It's also important for us to dispel myths and lies related to the system that exists in this country. Canada is always touted as an example of what not to do, and it's not entirely clear to me as to why that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again get off the Govt Run thing. Our health care system is run by health proffesionals and prvate non profit health organizations that are FUNDED by the Gov't. The Govt has little say in day to day operations other than to make sure that the health regions are meeting the care requirements and folowing the Heath Canada Guidlines. Our ministrys of health are very very small compared to the U.S on a percapita basis. As they are basically just a regulatory body to insure the Provinces (Federal Health Ministry) and health regions (Provincial Health Ministries) are meeting the minumum requirments. And this job is actually not as involved as one would think as most all the Provinces and Health Regions far exceeed the minmum requirements.

 

Matthew

Remember, this is America where the President fires the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, and the Congress inject themselves into whether or not the same company can/should close facilities (presumably in an effort to become profitable, and get the government monkey off its back).

 

This is what they do when they say they aren't meddling.

 

Keep this in mind when you say, "The Govt has little say in day to day operations", and that it has absolutely nothing in common with American Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...