17 Responses to “The Health Care Debate Explained With Pretty Pictures and a Fat Pig”

1. brian Posted: Nov 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

   1 I work in healthcare, in the insurance industry. I see the bad that happens here. In 2010 I will get no raise and my healthcare prices will increase by about $50/month. No company cares about their clients, only the money they can get from their clients. My company has waived Pre-Ex clauses for CEO’s, their families, and those of high level executives because THEY are the ones who decide whether to continue paying us. The people who can ACTUALLY PAY for these things are constantly having rules changed EXCLUSIVELY for them so they don’t have to pay anything while the little guys struggle and go broke trying to pay for the most basic of coverages. I’ve spent over 7 years in this industry and I hate it. If I were more educated/competent I’d be somewhere else right now. Personally I’d love to see the entire commercial healthcare industry collapse into oblivion. Really.

2. Ajanhelendam Posted: Nov 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

   2 I’m not sure if it’s plain ignorance or masterful spin, but the way America seems to bicker over healthcare reform is mind boggling to me. Socialism. Seriously? It already exists in US people. Public education system is SOCIALIST. If you hate Socialism so much send your kids to a PRIVATE school. Granted people do, but I don’t think the numbers match up to those condemning, especially when you consider where they got their degrees. Before they gripe about they’re already paying for it, they’re also paying for a bunch of other civic services that they’ve likely never or rarely use, such as public libraries. If they were so diligent, I doubt bookstores would be as prolific as they are, and why libraries are not so popular. I could go on and on listing *public* services. I sometimes wonder if the average American really doesn’t care about the rest of the world and only thinks about the situation here. Many democracies have socialized or partially socialized healthcare systems. Why doesn’t it seem to make sense to the American public in general. I mean we have a welfare system. I don’t hear people discussing getting rid of that for the poor/unemployed, yet when they get sick, too bad? Why bother feeding them in the first place then, it’s not like a typical welfare lifestyle is a model of healthy living. And what really irks me is how Medicare and Medicaid are often used. If you can rely on either of these two completely for your medical needs in retirement, you should also be able to rely strictly on Social Security. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but based on what cut goes to Medicare/Medicaid vs Social Security, it seems very improbable that it could cover medical expense when compared what you pay for insurance while you’re working.

3. FmF Posted: Nov 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

   3 Sound like he was referring to medicare there for a sec.i can explain one of the issue with medicare why it don’t run properly.The government treat it like they’re own fucken piggy bank.They “barrow”money out of it contently saying we’ll pay it back latter But they pretty much never payed back a dime.That why the next time i hear but medicare I’m planing to hit them across the face.There are other way to drive down cost with out the public option but they don’t want them ether.Each state is divided up among the provider were they get to basically own that part of the state and be the primary provider with out any competition from another provider.If you get rid of that and have them all actually competing in the free market it’ll will actual cut cost But they don’t want that ether.This probably what he was really referring to. People bin digging about what have bin consider preexisting condition’s are.Your skin mark not really far fetch by the stander i seen.They have claimed acne,pregnancy,domestic violent,and rape as preexisting condition.

4. Richard "Pocky" Kim Posted: Nov 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

   4 I just want everyone to have access to quality, low-to-no-cost health care. I don’t like the idea of someone dying just because they didn’t have insurance or enough money. That’s just my two cents.

5. Kevin Posted: Nov 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

   5 What I don’t get is why everyone says insurance is necessary. Insurance and capitalism don’t work well together since the profit depends on not providing the service. If you could get an NPO to work, it would work similarly to a public option where you pay in money and the like, it just wouldn’t be tax supported or run by people who’s primary job qualification is “electability”. Pocky, if you want quality and cheap, be prepared to wait for a long time. High Quality, low price, getting it fast are your options, pick two. And yes, I support the elimination of tax supported Medicare, Medicaid (and lot of other things) because I believe the government has overstepped it’s responsibilities and is spending tax dollars on things it has no right to spend them on.

6. ColoQ Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 12:34 am

   6 Very well done video. The opinion piece at the end (Re: right Vs. Privilege) is the only piece I take issue with. The argument hinges on the following premise. 1.) The Status Quo is ___, 2.) The Status Quo was developed this way for some reason (which may or may not be previously stated, but is ) 3.) The Status Quo appears to contend that society or popular belief is X Therefore X is true, or valid. This is, of course, not always true.

7. FmF Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 4:25 am

   7 Medicare could work a 100 times better then is dose now if they even had an idea what they are doing.The system in place is the same system that they started out with.At that time period the tax on each person could support 10 people.Now with inflation and longer life expectancy it can barely support half a person.I be more incline for a total over haul then wiping it out.The medicare tax is a specific tax that come out of your paycheck to pay for the coverage.That suppose to go to it and nothing else but the government dip in to it constantly though.So if it was eliminated wouldn’t you want the money you pay in for your future health care back.Government will have to pay back billion upon billions to the people or keep it.You can imagine what keeping it will do. We ranked 30th in quality,we pay the most out of every one,and who want to make a bet that we’re no were near the fastest.So any one of those we pick will be an improvement.My main issue is about mandates in the bill.If there no public option and there mandates (which they’re are)it will basically give every signal American over to the health care industry.I don’t like mandate being in there at all it basically punish the poor for being to poor to a ford coverage.It like a 2000 dollar tax penalty for not having coverage.That was the one that pass the finance comity.Which i would only use to wipe my ass with.Not sure all the stuff in the house version though.

8. Kevin Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 7:47 am

   8 FmF, could you…enunciate more? I’m having issues understanding your point.

9. Vortigar Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 8:00 am

   9 There’s a lot of weirdness in the American mindset when it comes to medical care. Kevin illustrates this nicely by opposing capitalism and insurance. How would those two not work together? They work together quite well in the whole of Europe, yet in America there’s some kind of built in opposition to the very idea of it. Maybe its because of the difference in corporate and tax structures? I don’t know, I’m not that well versed in this kind of stuff (being a foreigner for one). Its just that every time I read an American discussion on health care, statements pop up that are roundly disproven by dozens of other countries around the world where the systems American experts say [i]won’t[/i] work actually [i]do[/i] work. Aside: And what’s up with the dogmatic fear and/or hatred Americans have of anything that might even slightly be called socialist or (God forbid) communist? The Great Red Threat is gone, get it out of your system. I’m sorry but that stuff always baffled me. Aside2: I don’t know what parts of Michael Moore’s Sicko are true and what aren’t, but that film describes a horrific picture if even, say, 20% of that is indicative of the larger situation.

10. Drezz Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 9:23 am

    10 I’ll weigh in because we have healthcare here in the great white North. Its not all its cracked up to be. We pay X dollars per month for healthcare through income tax, and the care is provided by third party organizations which have to adhere to a strict federal code of standards. Everyone is entitled to care, and for those on low-income status, their fees are even waived to receive that care. Now here’s the kicker - these third parties often hammer the user with fees for a number of things - filling out forms, missed appointments, etc - any little bit they can squeeze out of patients in order to make it worthwhile. On top of that, we pay hefty premiums on health insurance for drug plans and other coverage in order to save yourself from getting gouged on medication - which is also extremely costly in Canada compared to the US. In addition to these underlying problems, there is a huge shortage of doctors in the country because the workoad/burnout rate is extremely high, and the pay is not worth it. A doctor in the US who works 80 hours a week would work over 120 in Canada due to the shortage of hired help. If you live in a small town (like I do) and you need to go to a hospital emergency room, you will be stuck waiting for a minimum of 4-8 hours before you are attended to. That’s not quality service - there’s your trade-off as well, since healthcare is a great thing for everyone, but when EVERYONE uses it, you’re going to have to wait longer and pay more. In the US, most people just say ‘fuck it’ and suffer because they can’t afford it - in Canada its the opposite, where you have the elderly clogging up doctor’s offices and emergency rooms with non-priority problems just because they can.

11. Kevin Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    11 Vortigar, I said insurance (and I meant as a whole) not health care. There’s a difference. Health care is medicine and treatment, insurance is cash being shuffled around, I’ll explain my statement. This has nothing to do with morals, pretty much business and logic, I don’t necessarily support these things. I said insurance and capitalism don’t work well together because I’m applying system logic to it. With a normal company you purchase a service or product and the company makes money by taking the difference of input and output. Input is either mats+labor for products or training + labor and then the output is the product or service delivered to your doorstep. With insurance you have money from the customer as both input and output. The theory of insurance is similar to gambling, the house always wins; if it doesn’t the house collapses. The money put into an insurance company has to be greater than the money going out. The problem is the only way to keep that from happening is to keep people from getting their money. I’d like to do an analogy. With a normal company you put money into the pot. The company then takes this money and spends it in such a manor that not only do they spend less money than you would doing it on your own, but there’s enough difference to make a living off of it (this is the essence of specialization) because they have more practice and are better organized than you. They then deliver the thing you want to you. In an insurance company it’s different. The customer puts money in the pot and then takes it out again when it’s needed. So it’s pretty much a bank that doesn’t lend the money out to try and make a profit. The only way the insurance company can make a profit is by keeping the money going in the pot larger than the money going out. Which they do by denying the customer access to the pot. The larger the difference the higher the profit. The essence of NPO/ government run system (when they’re not robbing it blind) is that the only “profit” needed is the money needed to pay the employees. So as long as this difference is maintained the NPO/government is good to go. Another analogy would be that a normal company is a motor, it turns one kind of energy (electricity) into another (kinetic) with various loses but still performs the conversion from one thing to another. Insurance is a battery, you can’t take out what you haven’t put in and you always get a bit less out due to losses. Another issue is the low risk reward. IF I take less risks than others and practice good hygiene and keep myself in shape, I have lower costs, therefor shouldn’t I get a discount to encourage I continue doing so (similar to car insurance)? If not why shouldn’t I get a reward for being less expensive to take care of? As for the whole “it works other places, so it should work here” argument, keep in mind that different cultures work differently. Democracy works in a lot of places, does that mean it will work everywhere? No, sometimes cultures are just too different. I’m not saying it couldn’t work, I’m just saying that if it works some places it isn’t guaranteed to work others. How many countries have much tighter gun control than the USA? How many have a higher/lower per capita violent crime rate? Saying there’s one cause of anything is blatant lie. And you still can’t forget the trifecta. Quality, speed, or cost effective, you only have so many resources so one of them has to give.

12. Maystro Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    12 I’ve heard a debate about the American healthcare system a little while back, and it does seem that the same points are being raised, and nothing has changed since it was first discussed. I’m a foreigner as well, so i can’t speak as to the exact workings of the american health system, but i can paint a picture of the Australian health system. First off, its not perfect. Show me a perfectly working government, or even private system, and i’ll give you a cake. A nice one too. Secondly, the laws in regards to tax and corporate operation are different, so all that happens in our system may not be possible. We have free healthcare in australia. Every taxpayer, from the low-income, to the corporate high-flyer pay a percentage of their income to go directly, and i mean directly, to healthcare. Its a flat rate (1.5%) taxed across all income brackets. So, we’ve established that healthcare is paid for, at least in part. So, where do the insurance companies fit in? Well, insurance companies typically charge a yearly fee (or monthly if you swing that way), and will usually give you a better service, as well as access to other areas of healthcare that the normal system doesn’t cover, e.g, eyecare, or dental. So, the question remains, if healthcare is free, why bother with insurance companies? Why doesn’t everyone just stress out the normal system. Well, there’s two reasons for that. The first is financial. Yes, you do have to pay for insurance. However, the fee charged has a rebate attached that the government uses as an incentive to get people into it. Also, once a taxpayers income reaches a high enough level, the government decides that because there is enough income, the person should have private healthcare. To enforce that point, a second tax is imposed, and extra 1% of all net income (including employer benefits, just to catch people trying to cheat the system) is charged. So, if a person on hihg income wants free healthcare, he’s gotta pay more for it. The second reason is that, for the most part, a person on insurance is garunteed a certain level of care given to them. The more you pay, the better you are treated. So, if i pay enough to get the 3rd best doctor in the country, then thats who i get, nothing less. On free healthcare, i could also get that exact same doctor, thats true. But i could also get the 300th best doctor in the country. Thats the luck of the draw on that. Insurance also covers eyecare, dental work, and is usually not too terrible with pre-existing conditions, though you will have to pay more. Its not perfect, it has flaws, and god knows, no amount of free healthcare is gonna make that hospital line disappear any quicker, but you will get treated, the cost will be low, and there are various rebates and tax breaks for those on low income, or who need to spend a lot on medicine (20% over $1500 in fact), so even the poor can get a chance. I feel its a system that works.

13. McClaud Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    13 I love the fact that the anti-Public Option people are claiming that the US has the best health care in the world. And then go ballistic when I point out that we’re not - we were 42nd and now are 30th. Even if we’re improving, we’re still not there, and we will never be until the health care insurance industry is forced to actually compete with a cheap, efficient system. I too don’t know if the government can effectively run a public option for health care, but at some point we have to try because what we have DOESN’T WORK and people are getting sicker, costing us money when they go to the hospital and the hospital has to eat the cost that the person can’t pay.

14. Kevin Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    14 Wow, they have really low taxes in Australia, I think I dropped a third of my income on tax and I’m in the bracket just above no taxes, and I live in a state without income tax. I’ve noticed that, a lot of countries have lower taxes over all. I blame the tax breaks people get for donating stuff to charity.

15. FmF Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    15 There are different kinds of tax’s.You Have the tax that is just a pool of money that go to different things like schools,road, and so on.Then you have tax’s that suppose to pay for a specific service and nothing else.Medicare is one of those services.If it was in that pool of money it might do better.Best way to describe it is a government run saving account for medicine And like a saving account if a bank stop supplying a saving account wouldn’t you want the money you put in back.The government simply cannot afford refunding all that money back.It a complex system that not easy to explain sorry.

16. Kunoichi Posted: Nov 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    16 I’m sick of the “but the health care will be slow” argument. It won’t be. When it actually needs to be fast, it will be fast. When it’s not urgent, yes, you have to wait. I’m also sick of every reason against public health care. First of all, the U.S. system doesn’t work. People die due to lack of care. And not just from things that people can pretend were their fault (like the argument that fat people who have diabetes don’t deserve free care because they’re fat….). And why in the name of the gods is Dental and Vision not part of Health Care? What, my bad eyes aren’t a health issue? My teeth aren’t a health problem? Even if it’s well known that teeth suffer when the rest of you suffer, and vice versa? Lastly, health shouldn’t be an insurance thing. It makes no sense. Insurance if for the relatively unexpected, but probable. Car Insurance, Renter’s Insurance. Flood Insurance. The only insurances that don’t mesh with that philosophy are Life and Health, and life insurance isn’t really insurance at all (it’s really just a fund you pay into, when you think about it). Lots of countries have way higher taxes than the U.S., and some of those also happen to have way better standards of living. Like Canada.

17. Vortigar Posted: Nov 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    17 Kevin: That was not exactly why I used your phrasing as an example but yeah, there’s an inherent weirdness to insurance companies, especially from a purely logical view in a capitalist system, as they are by definition a socialist entity. Ie. everyone chips in a little so those big operations for the few can be paid for and you don’t have to bother with all the little bills from a doctor’s visit here and there. Simple enough so far, but the company itself needs to get its profits somewhere and in America this has run wild for decades due to (and there you have it) cultural mindset. Trying to change it now is practically impossible as it would require nothing short of an industry wide paradigm shift.