The Extremeskins health care town hall.

[Baculus]

What about the GOP misinformation and outright lies?

"Euthanasia."..Passive euthanasia is not a lie

Baloney. They were suggesting that end of life consultations would lead to euthanasia. This has NOTHING to do with so-called "passive euthanasia,' and you are merely twisting the argument.

"death panels." Not a lie

Prove it. I have asked you on multiple occasions to demonstrate WHERE H.R. 3200 has a "death panel" section, and not once have you provided me with anything. The real death panels exist in the form of insurers denying treatment, and this has nothing to do with that.

Again. A lie. And you are merely repeating it with zero basis for it.

"Rationing." Not a lie

WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONING. But otherwise, show me where rationing is built into the bill. Demonstrate the sections of it, otherwise, again, you are repeating talking points with no intellectual basis.

"illegal immigrants are the only uninsured." ? Que? never heard that

That is a right-wing talking point when describing the uninsured in the US.

"socialized medicine." Depends on the definition

There is only one reason defitiion: The government controls the medical facilities and the means of distributing health provisioning. This description would not fit most universal health care systems, and yet, even free-market systems such as France's is called "socialized" by the ignorant or ill-informed.

In the case of ObamaCare, citizens will still have a choice of free market providers. Even in a single-payer system, you can have a private enterprise market which exists alongside the public sector.

"power grab." Certainly

We already have monopolies -- insurance exchanges, vis-a-vis H.R. 3200, can reduce such power structures. It's as if you and others are completely oblivious to the "power grabs" which have taken place in the market place.

"choice will be removed." Not a lie

How so. Do you realize that we already lack choice, and that half of the markets in the US are dominated by a couple of providers? Monopolies are already reducing our choices. H.R. 3200 attempts to stimulate choices by the insurer exchange and a public option.

There is nothing in the bill that removes choices -- that abolishes private insurers or their means to participate in the free market, so yes, it is a lie.

"Nazism." I thought that's what the Dems accused the protesters of being?

The Democrats didn't accuse the protesters of being Nazis. Pelosi mentioned that these people were carrying signs with Swastikas becuase they are accusing the Democrats of a Nazi-like power grab.

It is amazing how someone saying, "Hey, you guys are carrying Nazi signs:" has become "OMG YOU ARE CALLING US NAZIS!"

Here is a suggestion -- don't carry signs with Nazi crap on it, no MATTER your intention. It's a typical overreaction by the right-wing. They want to insult others all they want, but freak out when anyone even suggests something in their direction.

"We have the best health care system in the world." In many ways yes

The metrics don't bare it out. So, no, we don't. No one ever says, "We have the best care in the world! Well, except for these areas . . . . " They say it in the context of, "Reform? We don't need no stinkin' reform."

"Government takeover." definately

Please demonstrate in the bill where private health insurers are abolished and this is a nationalized system. Otherwise, yes, this is a lie and you are repeating, again, with no basis. Like all the other previous points.

"Paid abortions." yes

A myth. There is nothing in that bill which provides for the federal provisioning of abortions.

"Medicare coverage will be cut." yes, that is the inescapable conclusion

We are not talking about 'inescapable conclusion" where you can just invent anything you want, which is pretty much every talking point I have listed. Either taxes are being raised or they are not.

This is another fabricated talking that you've justified with some mush logic, by "inescapable conclusion" that have no "inescapable evidence."

"Your taxes will be raised." yes

Taxes may be raised, by the means of a reduction in write-offs, by those who make more then $250,000. But, the Republicans always reference this to mean the Middle Class, and this is totally untrue.

So, no, taxes will NOT be raised on the majority of Americans, and this is how the issue is used as a scare tactic. In other words, it is another lie.

"Your bank records will be under government inspection." That one's iffy

That one isn't iffy -- it is a lie. Have you researched that claim to see if it is even true or has a basis in the bill?

Judging by your other remarks, I would say "no."

"Competition will be destroyed!" destroyed/crippled take your pick

Are you telling me that the insurance industry in the US is still weak that it would be crippled by another competitor? Especially since some of these industries are multi-billion dollar corporations? Especially since they are still operating within a market place, like a possible public competitor?

You rant like a girl

And you insult like a child.

Here, you need this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhiggins.house.gov%2Fhealthreform%2Fpdf%2F7-31-09_Myths_Facts_about_HR_3200.pdf&ei=8KeJSqT6DYOyNsbCxfsO&usg=AFQjCNGBkz7HiYs1kI2iU_nk_I7E5e74uA&sig2=sVLOsE4_6pFB8rIYJsgXHg

[Baculus]

So does that mean you don't have a study that looks at the total administrative costs of Canada compared to us and says their total system is more effecient?

I already provided one. Do you even read the links that I have post?

[SnyderShrugged]

so I dont have to start anothe rthread on the topic, I'll post this here. I just read this about Massa, a congressman in NYS.

He point blank said this...

"MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."

Wow, and here I thought a congressman is supposed to represent his constituents? (in his case, there are a majority of conservatives in his district)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/16/video-rep-massa-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-d/

[PeterMP]

I already provided one. Do you even read the links that I have post?

Yeah, I read the links and like I said, one didn't address the issue at all. The other cited a Harper story, which consisted of a quote from a guy that as near as I can tell hasn't ever published or done anything related to health care costs.

Those aren't studies. A study acutally requires somebody to dig up some information and do some analysis.

[Baculus]

Yeah, I read the links and like I said, one didn't address the issue at all. The other cited a Harper story, which consisted of a quote from a guy that as near as I can tell hasn't ever published or done anything related to health care costs.

Those aren't studies. A study acutally requires somebody to dig up some information and do some analysis.

No, I actually posted a link to a study from 2006. Also, this information is widely available on the Internet. I am not sure what's the issue here:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

What are you looking for at this point?

[Baculus]

so I dont have to start anothe rthread on the topic, I'll post this here. I just read this about Massa, a congressman in NYS.

He point blank said this...

"MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."

Wow, and here I thought a congressman is supposed to represent his constituents? (in his case, there are a majority of conservatives in his district)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/16/video-rep-massa-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-d/

Do you think that is something new? LOL.

[SnyderShrugged]

Do you think that is something new? LOL.

Not new, but pathetic just the same.

[Drockvb]

What is needed is afforadable health care for the middle and lower class, and those with PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS. Not everyone needs it. Many people (healthy people, and those well off financially), should be able to choose what they want.

It sucks having a pre existing condition with no insurance, and you can barely scratch 2 pennies together. I am living it. My medical expenses and health insurance premiums are the highest, and i can't afford it.

[Baculus]

Not new, but pathetic just the same.

Sure, I can agree with that. This is one of the pitfalls of a republic as opposed to a direct democracy.

[PeterMP]

No, I actually posted a link to a study from 2006. Also, this information is widely available on the Internet. I am not sure what's the issue here:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

What are you looking for at this point?

That doesn't do it either.

I don't ask for information that is widely availible on the internet, normally.

I am asking for a study that compares the overhead costs of the entire health care systems of the US and Canada (that is private and government costs in both countries).

People want to mantain that the Canadian system is more effecient, largely because the CBO notes that the US medicare system (therefore government) has lower overhead than the private sector. However, the CBO also points out that does not necessarily mean that the private sector is less effecient as they have other costs.

In ADDITION, the Canadian system, due to its private ensurers, is going to have the same associated costs (assuming they haven't expressly made things like advertising illegal).

The end result is I doubt that the Canadian system in total is really that much more effecient than ours.

I believe it is likely that their lower costs are almost entirely due to costs controlling mechanisms that are independent of universal care and if not in every case, certainly in most cases, could be created w/o the government entering into the healthcare market directly (or more directly than it currently does now in the US).

[Baculus]

That doesn't do it either.

I don't ask for information that is widely availible on the internet, normally.

I am asking for a study that compares the overhead costs of the entire health care systems of the US and Canada (that is private and government costs in both countries).

There have been several studies -- one from 1999, one from 2003, and one from 2006 (which I have referenced in past posts). These are all studies which are used when discussing this issue. For example, here is the one from 2003:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/349/8/768.pdf

People want to mantain that the Canadian system is more effecient, largely because the CBO notes that the US medicare system (therefore government) has lower overhead than the private sector. However, the CBO also points out that does not necessarily mean that the private sector is less effecient as they have other costs.

That still is not an adequate explantion for the differential in administrative costs.

[quite]In ADDITION, the Canadian system, due to its private ensurers, is going to have the same associated costs (assuming they haven't expressly made things like advertising illegal).

Here's the point and the difference: The singe-payer system makes overhead much, much smaller because less administrative work is done. The billing departments in Canadian hospitals are much smaller then their American counterparts because they just have less paper work to deal with.

The end result is I doubt that the Canadian system in total is really that much more effecient than ours.

It is, and has been since studies comparing the two systems started a few decades. The above study I just linked mentions their initial studies in the early 90s, when the same held true.

I believe it is likely that their lower costs are almost entirely due to costs controlling mechanisms that are independent of universal care and if not in every case, certainly in most cases, could be created w/o the government entering into the healthcare market directly (or more directly than it currently does now in the US).

Studies would prove otherwise, and Canada is not the only nation to demonstrate this, either.

[PeterMP]

There have been several studies -- one from 1999, one from 2003, and one from 2006 (which I have referenced in past posts). These are all studies which are used when discussing this issue. For example, here is the one from 2003:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/349/8/768.pdf

Why didn't you post this 4 pages ago?

One thing sticks out at me. Despite having more enrolles, American insurance companies employee more people per an enrolle than Canadian companies. That is exactly opposite of what I'd expected.

[Baculus]

Why didn't you post this 4 pages ago?

One thing sticks out at me. Despite having more enrolles, American insurance companies employee more people per an enrolle than Canadian companies. That is exactly opposite of what I'd expected.

I've either posted this article or one that had a link to it sometime in the past, but I have posted so many links at this point I am not where when I did.

From everything I have read, the Canadian system is just much, much simpler as far as paperwork is concerned.

[SnyderShrugged]

Why didn't you post this 4 pages ago?

One thing sticks out at me. Despite having more enrolles, American insurance companies employee more people per an enrolle than Canadian companies. That is exactly opposite of what I'd expected.

A lot of the "extra" employees are there due to HIPPA and SOX regulation compliance. Also, the US private companies often enter into performance guarantees with groups so functions like auditing, inspection,grievance and appeals, etc staff many more than would be needed without them.

It's good customer service for those groups to exist though, adds an element of security for a group when they sign on board.

[PeterMP]

A lot of the "extra" employees are there due to HIPPA and SOX regulation compliance. Also, the US private companies often enter into performance guarantees with groups so functions like auditing, inspection,grievance and appeals, etc staff many more than would be needed without them.

It's good customer service for those groups to exist though, adds an element of security for a group when they sign on board.

I guarantee you that Canada has similar laws to HIPPA and SOX that their private industry much comply with.

I will point out that that the paper didn't really conclude they were less effecient, just a massive amount of overhead.

This paper looks at the Canada and US situation and concludes it isn't effeciency that drives the issue, but choice:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f579866k58m4636x/

(Once you give me a paper in a peer reviewed journal, I can find everybody that has referenced them in a peer reviewed journal)

(US consumers (sometimes as demanded through negotiations with representatives (e.g. unions) demand flexibility (i.e. insurance companies can't write 3 or 4 big policy guidelines and plug everybody in because different companies require different plans due to the results of their obligations to their employees).

But even if I buy that arguement, you have to ask what is the value of choice. Having choices is not worth an infinite amount of money, and I think it can easily be argued we'd be better off giving up some choice in exchange for some savings.

[Baculus]

I guarantee you that Canada has similar laws to HIPPA and SOX that their private industry much comply with.

I will point out that that the paper didn't really conclude they were less effecient, just a massive amount of overhead.

This paper looks at the Canada and US situation and concludes it isn't effeciency that drives the issue, but choice:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f579866k58m4636x/

(Once you give me a paper in a peer reviewed journal, I can find everybody that has referenced them in a peer reviewed journal)

(US consumers (sometimes as demanded through negotiations with representatives (e.g. unions) demand flexibility (i.e. insurance companies can't write 3 or 4 big policy guidelines and plug everybody in because different companies require different plans due to the results of their obligations to their employees).

But even if I buy that arguement, you have to ask what is the value of choice. Having choices is not worth an infinite amount of money, and I think it can easily be argued we'd be better off giving up some choice in exchange for some savings.

That is a primary reason why a single-payer system is more efficient. Or, as the 2003 paper that I referenced said: "A system with multiple insurers is also intrinsically costlier than a single-payer system. For insurers it means multiple duplicative claims-processing facilities and smaller insured groups, both of which increase overhead. Fragmentation also raises costs for providers who must deal with multiple insurance products — at least 755 in Seattle alone — forcing them to determine applicants’ eligibility and to keep track of the various copayments, referral networks, and approval requirements. Canadian physicians send virtually all bills to a single insurer. A multiplicity of insurers also precludes paying

hospitals a lump-sum, global budget."

[Baculus]

Health care. No, the debate has not gone away!

At one point someone asked for evidence of insurance atroturfing. Here is an article on this subject:

"The health-insurance industry is sending thousands of its employees to town-hall meetings and other forums during Congress's August recess to try to counter a tide of criticism directed at the insurers and remain a player -- and not an outsider -- in the debate over the future of the health-care system."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125107323271252625.html

The ThinkProgress article which discusses this as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/ahip-lobbying-publicoption/

[Baculus]

I have a question for federal employees: What do you think of the federal health care system? That is, the Federal Employees Health Benefits? Good or bad? And if it is considered a good program, how come we don't expand it for non-employee citizens?