Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Epinephrine]

I'm not as educated in this area as Epinephrine but then again neither are you dude. You're a first or second year in economics student who has no personal experience in A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM or personal experience working in BOTH systems. You quote rhetoric and use your debating knowledge to back up your arguments, just because you're in second year or first year economics and you debated in high school doesn't mean that you're more knowledgeable than Epinephrine, so fucking quit acting like it.

Actually I think he's an English major And yes, even my debating credentials are better than his but that's besides the point.

[Cops]

Actually I think he's an English major And yes, even my debating credentials are better than his but that's besides the point.

come second year everyone changes their major.

[Cops]

Actually I think he's an English major And yes, even my debating credentials are better than his but that's besides the point.

-Pearl Jam: As far as the societies and populations go it is a huge concern to implementing a Universal Health Care system, I will admit that it's easier for Canada to have one because of our population size but I'm not going to answer this question because I feel as though Epinephrine or someone else is better off answering this question. I do not have a degree in anything, I do not completely understand the health system in both countries and I would not fully understand the costs of implementing one. There's better people to answer this question. What I was saying though is that if you did implement one it would probably be a two tear system that had basic health care for it's people and still allowed people to buy better services as they see fit. I full heartily believe that once you have SOMETHING in place things will prosper and costs will come down (private doctors and surgeons cutting costs to keep up the amount of business for people who are still willing to pay for 'better' treatment)

I'm giving you the floor to answer his question.

[Epinephrine]

-Pearl Jam: As far as the societies and populations go it is a huge concern to implementing a Universal Health Care system, I will admit that it's easier for Canada to have one because of our population size but I'm not going to answer this question because I feel as though Epinephrine or someone else is better off answering this question. I do not have a degree in anything, I do not completely understand the health system in both countries and I would not fully understand the costs of implementing one. There's better people to answer this question. What I was saying though is that if you did implement one it would probably be a two tear system that had basic health care for it's people and still allowed people to buy better services as they see fit. I full heartily believe that once you have SOMETHING in place things will prosper and costs will come down (private doctors and surgeons cutting costs to keep up the amount of business for people who are still willing to pay for 'better' treatment)

I'm giving you the floor to answer his question.

Sigh, easy answer.

There is already 'free' healthcare, it's called veteran's healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (children's plan). Millions of people already use these systems. Basically as the system for those are already in place, just use whatever they use, take how they end up billing hospitals/doctors, and expand that.

Since you are creating one master program, the administrative costs would also go down significantly as all of those programs would now be amalgamated under one program and the only money spent to see if people actually qualified for the program would be proof of citizenship (easy to administer).

From a doctor's perspective or hospital's perspective it would be simple. Currently they bill individual insurance plans or individuals for services. With a universal system, they just send all their bills to the same insurance plan (the public one), and presto. In Canada, doctors will send a bill to the public insurance plan every so often, and they will get paid. Since there's only one system, it's very easy for doctors to do, and very little hassle in figuring out who qualifies for what since everyone who has a health card qualifies for everything.

As for rates, insurance companies already regulate how much doctors and hospitals are allowed to charge for each visit/procedure with standard rates. So basically, the system could just charge those rates.

As for the completely private cash-for-service services (i.e. for the super rich, or for stuff like laser eye surgery), those will probably end up staying as it would be politically too difficult and unnecessary to remove them. The simple way to deal with that is, if they offer any service which is covered under the public plan (i.e. anything from appendectomies to immunizations), they cannot bill patients for it directly. This means that no one is allowed to 'quit' the system, especially not the super rich, so they will have to pay the taxes like everyone else, instead of the inevitable wish to 'opt out' of it and ruin the viability of the system.

If these doctors are truly doing 'cutting edge' surgery which no other place does, that obviously wouldn't be covered by the government, and as such they can charge whatever they want for it. As well, non-citizens would still have to pay. So places like the Mayo Clinic would still exist because rich people from around the world go there.

They can continue to charge for things like 'nicer hospital room', 'tv in your room' and so on. As well things unessential to healthcare like cosmetic procedures would still be private. Basically anything that isn't receiving essential health care, is fair game. To decide what exactly is essential, I believe doctors can decide that as an advisory committee (from the college of physicians, who already regulate who can and cannot be a doctor) to the government, and allow their professional judgment to be the deciding factor. Actually this is how the Canadian system works.

And how do you pay for this? Taxes. The thing is, the sudden cut in the amount that companies have to pay for current private healthcare coverage for their employees would probably more than offset the new taxes or at the very least equal it (in increased profits and salaries).

Why is this? Well, private healthcare is simply more expensive because you have a middleman - the insurance companies. Insurance companies not only pay out for things, they also have advertising, offices, highly paid executives, PROFITS, and entire departments which figure out who is 'eligable' for healthcare and entire departments which figure out who is not allowed to receive what care even if their plan is paid for. Remember, we are now switching to a system where doctors and hospitals are making the exact same amount of money per procedure, except the administrative costs and inefficiencies of having so many middlemen insurance companies is completely cut.

Overall, the concept for this is simple. The reason why no one has proposed it so far, is because they know that over a milllion Americans work for insurance companies. They also know that a lot of people are afraid of change or against 'socialist' systems whatever that means, so they have to dress it up. Most of the proposals by the current presidential candidates use a combination of tax breaks, extra incentives, and forcing current insurance companies to take anyone on no matter what. This is clearly the wrong approach because it will end up adding much more complexity to an already complex system, and will continue to endlessly perpetuate the middlemen which are insurance companies, except this time subsidized by the government. So in the end all of the current proposals will just end up costing ridiculous amounts of money in the end, and not really show the potential of a real universal system.

[Vatican Assassin]

talking about health care is a great way to kill any thread

[HeavenSent]

talking about health care is a great way to kill any thread

I didn't even read their shit... I'm sure my feelings were reciprocated by them as well. :P

Did you notice in the CNN-YouTube Republican debates how they talked about illegal immigrants? What a crock! I'm sure they all know about the superhighway being built and the plans to erase the borders to make the NAU.... but to make Ron Paul look like a 'conspiracy nut', they gave him the question about it. The same can be said on the topic of eliminating the IRS. Everyone but McCain said they'd do away with the IRS. They were all talking out of their ass.

It also seemed pretty obvious that Romney & Giuliani were going to be the final two picks to represent the Republican party.

I have a really strong feeling that Bush ain't going anywhere come time for elections. By the time the elections do roll around, the whole country is going to be under martial law and Bush is going to take on the roll of Dictator.

Time will tell. -_-

[PaulOakenfold]

[HeavenSent]

[Epinephrine]

I like how you were insulted that they made Ron Paul out to look like a conspiracy nut.

[HeavenSent]

I like how you were insulted that they made Ron Paul out to look like a conspiracy nut.

Your ignorance (& people that think like you) makes me weep. :bye2:

[genocidal]

Your ignorance (& people that think you) makes me weep. :bye2:

Your ignorance makes me think you Epi; I am therefore blind in one eye absent the Shepherd's guidance.

[HeavenSent]

Your ignorance makes me think you Epi; I am therefore blind in one eye absent the Shepherd's guidance.

I subconsciously omitted 'like'... my bad. Thank you for bringing that error to my attention.

Edit:> Nevertheless, thank you both for keeping this thread alive. :wub:

[HeavenSent]

December 03, 2007
Message from Ron
Want to know a secret? There were two moments I especially enjoyed at the CNN/YouTube debate -- despite my frustration at some of the questions, and the maldistribution of time.

First, I was pleased at John McCain’s attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?

I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we’ve heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.

Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, “Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters.” It’s only the beginning, I told him....

....The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don’t like what we’re doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_p.../03/index.html

December 01, 2007
Paul Wins Virginia Straw Poll
Ron Paul vanquished the competition in the annual Virginia GOP retreat straw poll by collecting 182 votes (38%). Despite having former senator George Allen and current Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnall speaking on his behalf, Fred Thompson managed only 112 votes (23%). While Mike Huckabee, who was represented by his wife, finished a distant third with 51 votes (11%).

Virginia GOP Retreat Straw Poll Results:
Ron Paul 182 (38%)
Fred Thompson 112 (23%)
Mike Huckabee 51 (11%)
Rudy Guiliani 45 (9%)
Mitt Romney 43 (9%)
John McCain 23 (5%)
Duncan Hunter 19 (4%)
Tom Tancredo 4 (<1%)
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_p.../01/index.html

Mainstream media (propoganda controlled networks) never mentions when polls are in Ron Paul's favor.

[Pearl Jam]

Sigh, easy answer.

There is already 'free' healthcare, it's called veteran's healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (children's plan). Millions of people already use these systems. Basically as the system for those are already in place, just use whatever they use, take how they end up billing hospitals/doctors, and expand that.

Since you are creating one master program, the administrative costs would also go down significantly as all of those programs would now be amalgamated under one program and the only money spent to see if people actually qualified for the program would be proof of citizenship (easy to administer).

From a doctor's perspective or hospital's perspective it would be simple. Currently they bill individual insurance plans or individuals for services. With a universal system, they just send all their bills to the same insurance plan (the public one), and presto. In Canada, doctors will send a bill to the public insurance plan every so often, and they will get paid. Since there's only one system, it's very easy for doctors to do, and very little hassle in figuring out who qualifies for what since everyone who has a health card qualifies for everything.

As for rates, insurance companies already regulate how much doctors and hospitals are allowed to charge for each visit/procedure with standard rates. So basically, the system could just charge those rates.

As for the completely private cash-for-service services (i.e. for the super rich, or for stuff like laser eye surgery), those will probably end up staying as it would be politically too difficult and unnecessary to remove them. The simple way to deal with that is, if they offer any service which is covered under the public plan (i.e. anything from appendectomies to immunizations), they cannot bill patients for it directly. This means that no one is allowed to 'quit' the system, especially not the super rich, so they will have to pay the taxes like everyone else, instead of the inevitable wish to 'opt out' of it and ruin the viability of the system.

If these doctors are truly doing 'cutting edge' surgery which no other place does, that obviously wouldn't be covered by the government, and as such they can charge whatever they want for it. As well, non-citizens would still have to pay. So places like the Mayo Clinic would still exist because rich people from around the world go there.

They can continue to charge for things like 'nicer hospital room', 'tv in your room' and so on. As well things unessential to healthcare like cosmetic procedures would still be private. Basically anything that isn't receiving essential health care, is fair game. To decide what exactly is essential, I believe doctors can decide that as an advisory committee (from the college of physicians, who already regulate who can and cannot be a doctor) to the government, and allow their professional judgment to be the deciding factor. Actually this is how the Canadian system works.

And how do you pay for this? Taxes. The thing is, the sudden cut in the amount that companies have to pay for current private healthcare coverage for their employees would probably more than offset the new taxes or at the very least equal it (in increased profits and salaries).

Why is this? Well, private healthcare is simply more expensive because you have a middleman - the insurance companies. Insurance companies not only pay out for things, they also have advertising, offices, highly paid executives, PROFITS, and entire departments which figure out who is 'eligable' for healthcare and entire departments which figure out who is not allowed to receive what care even if their plan is paid for. Remember, we are now switching to a system where doctors and hospitals are making the exact same amount of money per procedure, except the administrative costs and inefficiencies of having so many middlemen insurance companies is completely cut.

Overall, the concept for this is simple. The reason why no one has proposed it so far, is because they know that over a milllion Americans work for insurance companies. They also know that a lot of people are afraid of change or against 'socialist' systems whatever that means, so they have to dress it up. Most of the proposals by the current presidential candidates use a combination of tax breaks, extra incentives, and forcing current insurance companies to take anyone on no matter what. This is clearly the wrong approach because it will end up adding much more complexity to an already complex system, and will continue to endlessly perpetuate the middlemen which are insurance companies, except this time subsidized by the government. So in the end all of the current proposals will just end up costing ridiculous amounts of money in the end, and not really show the potential of a real universal system.

A couple things:

1. You're right Epi, IT IS an easy answer, and you did a good way of presenting the solution. But about 80-90% of this stating the obvious to me as well as anyone who has done a moderate amount of homework on the shoddy status of American healthcare and possible solutions.

2. Cops, although I appreciate you acknowledging you didn't have an "answer" and directing it elsewhere, what I said was never intended as a question . Epi said it himself in his post so I don't have to...right now our health care runs through a few million insurance middlemen. This creates problems- feasibility problems - with the outright dumping of our current system and the adoption of a public health care plan similar to what Canada uses. That's a lot of jobs. That's a lot of money.

3. Right now, to my knowledge, Medicare/Medicaid/etc. are primarily programs used to assist the lower class and elderly. To simply "expand" it is theoretically possible, but the amount of congressional red tape (read: bullshit) that would have to take place for that to happen would have it bogged down for a good while.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of ideas presented in this thread. I'd like to see the system make changes as much as the next guy. On paper, what Epi says makes logical sense. But I know firsthand that in the United States, logical sense doesn't always prevail when it goes head to head with the almighty dollar.

Am I extremely well-read and versed on the subject? Not so much, I'll admit that right here and now. I'm just going off of what I've seen, what I've watched/read in addition to my own personal understanding of business finance and the economy (which I'm a little bit more versed on, heh).

I like some of the debate going on in here. Let's keep it up without resorting to calling each other ballsacks and dickfaces.

[Galleleo]

So I watched Sicko yesterday, and yes no country is perfect and yes Micheal Moore doesn't only give facts, etc. etc. I am not someone who just swallows what he sees.

But you cannot deny that healthcare wise there is something seriously wrong in the US. Even the simple fact that you can get billed for an ambulance ride because it wasn't pre-approved already says so much.

I did not know that England actually had it better arranged than us, I had heard about the NHS but I didn't know it was the only one in the UK. Our system is drifting more to the US system, but luckily I know that we will never reach the US system, there is no way you can get that through in legislation in the Netherlands.

I was talking with this guy from the US today who is at my uni for a year, and he was saying that the average wage in America was about 40.000 dollars? That is not that much, so increasing the income wage to get a far more social healthcare system (cause income wage is not that high in America) doesnt really seem feasible if average income is that low (Or he might have been referring to something else and I just misunderstood). Of course America could do a lot of cost cutting in the area of the army.