Keeping Your Doctor?

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

"What the American people want" a feat of outstanding mind reading by Timothy Bonney, who also pronounces wayward democratic reps "stupid."

"What the American people are going to get, like it or not" by Barack Obama.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed Tim when you say "The poll numbers negative to ACA are largely do to the GOP spending almost all of its time undermining the bill, trying to repeal the bill, and talking about almost nothing but the bill. It is their one tactic, to try to tear down the healthcare law even going so far as endangering our economy with a shut down in hopes of doing it."

I do not think you can support the idea that, "The poll numbers negative to ACA are largely do (due) to the GOP spending almost all of its time undermining the bill, trying to repeal the bill, and talking about almost nothing but the bill", by either the Congressional Record or a through perusal of House Bills.

I am inclined to think it only seems that way to those supporting the bill.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed the house voted 46 times to repeal the ACA. That's basically all they've gotten done other than shut down the government. 46 times! That isn't a perception.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, if given a choice between the ACA and a single payer system I'd be for a single payer system myself. I think it would have a much better opportunity for efficiency and cost cutting than what is being tried now.

[Sandy]

[ET]

Quite interesting to hear two of you support the idea that a government health care monopoly would be "efficient" and "cost cutting". Based on what? What economic evidence or thought supports the assertion that a monopoly on anything results in lower cost? Why does a monopoly need to be efficient? Why would it need to worry about costs? It has no competition. It has no incentive to be efficient. With a monopoly you take what they give you at the price they dictate and say "thank you". You have no other choices.

On one hand some folks here talk up the idea that competition in the Obamacare exchanges will lower costs, with the implied argument that there were fewer choices than now and thus higher costs, but then turn around and say the single choice that comes with a monopoly will lower costs. HUH?

Primary education is, for all intents and purposes, a government monopoly in this country with some 90% of children attending government schools. If a government monopoly results in "efficiency and cost cutting", then why do we spend soooo much more on education in this country than other countries that have better results? Why is our "efficient" government monopoly in educating our children always, at least according to the politicians, in need of more money?

How is it that in any other area of economics, we are told that having more competition will lead to lower prices, but you seem to believe a single choice will lead to lower prices if government is in charge of a health care monopoly.

Sandy and Timothy's argument makes no sense.

[Haruo]

Just out of curiosity, ET, what percentage of kids in the other, cheaper countries go to government schools? And what sort of schools, if any, do the other kids there go to?

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Mrs Haruo]

Amen and Amen Sandy. I fully agree. Medical care is a moral issue and should not be a business where a hospital can get away with billing you $15.00 for a "Mucus Containment Device" and find out it's actually a box of Kleenex.
I have been getting medical care from the Veteran's Administration for the last 18 years. At first because I was absolutely destitute, homeless, and because I put in 4 years in the Navy in service to my country they wouldn't turn me away. There were times I had to wait in long lines, but I always took something to read or some needlework do instead of griping and complaining like some vets do. With only a few exceptions, I have been extremely satisfied with the care I have received. I have a spoken to several doctors over the years who say the same thing: "I'd MUCH rather work here than private practice. I don't have to battle with insurance companies to get paid, or to approve of treatment I feel is right for my patients. Here I am free to concentrate on what I became a doctor for-treat my patients. My present M.D. is head of the department and doing research in improving health care for the needs of aging women. She treats me as a partner in my care and not just a $$$.



There was a time I would rather forget when my children were young and their father and I were in low paying jobs with lousy benefit packages. We couldn't afford health insurance and pay the rent and keep food on the table at the same time. I don't know how many nights I lost sleep worrying that someone would get sick or seriously injured. I guess it was fortunate for me that my parents held a strong distrust for the American Medical Association and unless there was a broken bone or we needed shots or a physical for school or scout camp, they treated everything else at home -- with the occasional advice of my aunt, who was a very resourceful and clever nurse. They gave me the confidence that I didn't have to take the kids to the doctor every time they sneezed, but we were very blessed that a few episodes of minor surgery and a broken bone or two only happened times were better and had decent medical coverage. Come to think of it, when my parents were growing up, there was no such thing as health insurance- You tried to stay healthy or you died young and if you couldn't pay the doctor with cash money, sometimes he would accept a dozen chickens or a couple bushels of peaches.

[KeithE]

ET you wanted evidence. Listen to this .

Points made in this video:
-Universal, single-payer administration costs are less than 2% while current system admin costs are 14% (7x what has been demonstrated - e.g. Medicare and in over 40 countries)
-Doctors are spending 20% of their time on paperwork with current systems
-Canadian system costs 1/2 of the US system yet everyone is covered
-Insurance business/hospitals opts for overtreatment to make more money.
-ObamaCare just strengthens the current system of health insurance (treatment gatekeepers), hospital monopolies (you go to the nearest one), and pharmaceutics (volume buys eliminated) and does not meaningful address admin costs or overtreatment

[KeithE]

[ET]