Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[DuncanONeil]

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[SadisticNature]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

[steelish]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[DuncanONeil]

Social Security is demanding payment on the "IOUs" Congress replaced all of the cash they found burning a hole in their pocket for the last 30+ years!

Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

We've had Americans cross the border for major surgery too. There are lots of fairly specialized modern surgeries that only a few places in the world do (and different places for each one). Toronto has some of the best research hospitals in the world, and Americans come here for surgeries in those specialties.

The premier of Newfoundland & Labrador (More like a governor than a president) went to the US for a specialized surgery from a surgeon who specializes in that procedure. It's not that either system is better, its that particular procedure has better people for it in the US, there are other procedures where the best specialists are North of the border.

[Lion]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

[steelish]

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

And if America goes to this inefficient government-run system, where would the premier have gone? No one seems to get it. Just because a government in one country put in an NHS, doesn't mean ALL governments are capable of doing it. Until we weed out the corruption, the goons in power right now would screw it up so badly that it would be the joke of the world.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

Uh, yeah. That is our government's constitutional duty. To ensure the safety of the citizens. It is NOT our government's constitutional duty however, to provide a service to the citizens.