Obamacare is a complete and utter disaster, time to learn from Singapore

31 posts / 0 new

Healthcare in Singapore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore

WHO Rankings, Singapore 6 in the world, USA 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

We spend 17%, they spend less than 4% of their GDP on healthcare:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396.html

Which would you rather have, Singapore's model or Obamacare?

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Comments

I'd rather read a report that's less than 15 years old.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

I'd rather read a report that's less than 15 years old.

How many years ago was 2010?

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Govt run, public hospitals that charge at cost for services. Yeah, I suspect that plan would not make it through the Senate. But I love it.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote chilidog:

I'd rather read a report that's less than 15 years old.

How many years ago was 2010?

Not only is 1997 ancient history, but surely you remember the "Asian Contagion" of that period.

So yeah, I want more more recent data.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote chilidog:

I'd rather read a report that's less than 15 years old.

How many years ago was 2010?

Not only is 1997 ancient history, but surely you remember the "Asian Contagion" of that period.

So yeah, I want more more recent data.

What report are you saying is from 1997? This article was written in 2010. My point on posting it was to show the difference in the percent of GDP we spend on healthcare.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:

WHO Rankings, Singapore 6 in the world, USA 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

From the link:

"Data from 1997 was used in the report."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Entitlement Society:

WHO Rankings, Singapore 6 in the world, USA 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

From the link:

"Data from 1997 was used in the report."

Do you think that their healthcare has gotten worse since? Singapore now has the 3rd highest GDP/Capita in the world.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

FAIL

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

FAIL

Yes, that's what Obamacare will do.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

I am happy with Sweden's. The basic problem with US is it's based on profit. Most of the others are based on health and it's associated outcomes for the patient. Doctors and hospitals seek to increase income, insurance companies seek to increase income. When it's a business every sector seeks profit and jacks prices, seeks additional tests,...and so it goes...

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I judge Obama care on one factor. Congress forced it on you but refused to accept it for themselves. So how good could it be? Good enough for you, but not nearly good enough for the rich or the ruling elites.

I had all I can take of the government "taking care" of me. Just go away please.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote douglaslee:

I am happy with Sweden's. The basic problem with US is it's based on profit. Most of the others are based on health and it's associated outcomes for the patient. Doctors and hospitals seek to increase income, insurance companies seek to increase income. When it's a business every sector seeks profit and jacks prices, seeks additional tests,...and so it goes...

Sweden's system works for them, because their people live much healthier lives then Americans. If America implemented the Swedish model it would be a lot more expensive. Sweden is a socialist leech nation. They don't believe in free markets or profit. As a result they leech off of the free market economies that actually invent and innovate things.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote rigel1:

I judge Obama care on one factor. Congress forced it on you but refused to accept it for themselves. So how good could it be? Good enough for you, but not nearly good enough for the rich or the ruling elites.

I had all I can take of the government "taking care" of me. Just go away please.

It does apply to Congress, and their staff members. In fact, much of the way Obamacare works was based on what congress already had for themselves.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote douglaslee:

I am happy with Sweden's. The basic problem with US is it's based on profit. Most of the others are based on health and it's associated outcomes for the patient. Doctors and hospitals seek to increase income, insurance companies seek to increase income. When it's a business every sector seeks profit and jacks prices, seeks additional tests,...and so it goes...

Sweden's system works for them, because their people live much healthier lives then Americans. If America implemented the Swedish model it would be a lot more expensive. Sweden is a socialist leech nation. They don't believe in free markets or profit. As a result they leech off of the free market economies that actually invent and innovate things.

A free market must allow for people to have choices. If your child or wife are sick, there is no choice to say "no thanks." Real people in the real world do not choose to let their child die, or start shopping for cancer doctors in the hospital. All the pricing power rests with the suppliers. In any transaction where the two choices are pay-to-live, or go-die, that is not a free market. That is called ransoming.

And, if you have researched pricing for services cash vs insurance, our HMO system is supposed to be this great invention to use group purchasing power to save money. The exact opposite is what occurs. HMO's pervert the market, and hospital chains do too. Instead of using the market to create a price, the suppliers set prices, and heaven forbid we allow the government to negotiate for Medicare services, or drug prices.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote douglaslee:

I am happy with Sweden's. The basic problem with US is it's based on profit. Most of the others are based on health and it's associated outcomes for the patient. Doctors and hospitals seek to increase income, insurance companies seek to increase income. When it's a business every sector seeks profit and jacks prices, seeks additional tests,...and so it goes...

Sweden's system works for them, because their people live much healthier lives then Americans. If America implemented the Swedish model it would be a lot more expensive. Sweden is a socialist leech nation. They don't believe in free markets or profit. As a result they leech off of the free market economies that actually invent and innovate things.

A free market must allow for people to have choices. If your child or wife are sick, there is no choice to say "no thanks." Real people in the real world do not choose to let their child die, or start shopping for cancer doctors in the hospital. All the pricing power rests with the suppliers. In any transaction where the two choices are pay-to-live, or go-die, that is not a free market. That is called ransoming.

And, if you have researched pricing for services cash vs insurance, our HMO system is supposed to be this great invention to use group purchasing power to save money. The exact opposite is what occurs. HMO's pervert the market, and hospital chains do too. Instead of using the market to create a price, the suppliers set prices, and heaven forbid we allow the government to negotiate for Medicare services, or drug prices.

Somebody has to pay for the service. Nothing's free. In a European style healthcare system people aren't held accountable for how they treat themselves. Do you want to pay for the healthcare of a 300 pound person who eat McDonalds 4 times a day? I know that I don't. The Singaporian system uses healthcare savings accounts, holding people accountable for how people take care of themselves, and thus making the system more efficient for everybody. I agree that Medicare Part D is a failure and if it continues to exist the government should at least be able to negotiate for drug prices.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts.

1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would

2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Entitlement Society:

Healthcare in Singapore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore

WHO Rankings, Singapore 6 in the world, USA 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

We spend 17%, they spend less than 4% of their GDP on healthcare:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396.html

Which would you rather have, Singapore's model or Obamacare?

They both subsidize health care, so at least that is a good start.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:

Healthcare in Singapore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore

WHO Rankings, Singapore 6 in the world, USA 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

We spend 17%, they spend less than 4% of their GDP on healthcare:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396.html

Which would you rather have, Singapore's model or Obamacare?

What does this have to do with the title of your post? What is Obamacare a disaster? I doubt a system of public hospitals refuses care to people with pre-existing illnesses.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Pretty hard to call Obamacare a complete and utter disaster when it hasn't even been fully implemented yet. You can't seriously and legitimately make a claim like that until the law is in full effect for at least a few years. Get back to us in, say, 2017 and then we can have a conversation about whether Obamacare worked or not.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Pretty hard to call Obamacare a complete and utter disaster when it hasn't even been fully implemented yet. You can't seriously and legitimately make a claim like that until the law is in full effect for at least a few years. Get back to us in, say, 2017 and then we can have a conversation about whether Obamacare worked or not.

It's a disaster, because of the cost it's going to be on the economy. You know who can't wait for Obamacare? The insurance companies. This plan is an attack on businesses across the country.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote douglaslee:

I am happy with Sweden's. The basic problem with US is it's based on profit. Most of the others are based on health and it's associated outcomes for the patient. Doctors and hospitals seek to increase income, insurance companies seek to increase income. When it's a business every sector seeks profit and jacks prices, seeks additional tests,...and so it goes...

Sweden's system works for them, because their people live much healthier lives then Americans. If America implemented the Swedish model it would be a lot more expensive. Sweden is a socialist leech nation. They don't believe in free markets or profit. As a result they leech off of the free market economies that actually invent and innovate things.

Have you used Skype lately, or shopped at Ikea, or seen heavy construction equipment like Volvo, or seen a Mack truck lately [Mack is Saab subsidiary] Saab also makes fighter jets, Norway buys them, so does Denmark, for their NATO missions.

They believe in free markets and competition, america believes in monopolies, as shown by their healthcare system [it is a monopoly with a cap on licenses set by AMA].

Profit is always costly, non-profit hospitals used to be affordable. Kucinich would not privatize the utility companies, those mayors that did so saw a tripling of utility costs to the consumer, but the owners got rich. Enron made a lot of profit, CA saw their utilities more than quadrupled when deregulation was passed.

Sweden and other Scandinavian countries do not think their citizens are commodities. Health care is not a commodity. The environment is not a commodity. Children are not a commodity.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

What is your child's life worth? What is your wife's life worth? What is your parent's life worth? Can it ever cost too much to save their lives? If we don't think healthcare first and cost second we are barbarians. Do you think we could scrape enough away from the bloated defense budget to pay for our loved ones lives?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

What is your child's life worth? What is your wife's life worth? What is your parent's life worth? Can it ever cost too much to save their lives? If we don't think healthcare first and cost second we are barbarians. Do you think we could scrape enough away from the bloated defense budget to pay for our loved ones lives?

The question is not how much your loved ones lives are worth because they are priceless. The question is how much is your freedom worth? Because once the government has control of your health care they have total control of your lives.

On a side note even if we cut the constitutionally required military budget to zero we would still not be able to pay for the health care of the U.S. Population. The military health care system had a budget of 40 billion for the 9 million people it covered in 2007. so lets convert that to cover the 300 million in the u.s. It would roughly cost 1.3 trillion dollars per year not counting for inflation, abuse, or fraud.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

What is your child's life worth? What is your wife's life worth? What is your parent's life worth? Can it ever cost too much to save their lives? If we don't think healthcare first and cost second we are barbarians. Do you think we could scrape enough away from the bloated defense budget to pay for our loved ones lives?

The question is not how much your loved ones lives are worth because they are priceless. The question is how much is your freedom worth? Because once the government has control of your health care they have total control of your lives. On a side note even if we cut the constitutionally required military budget to zero we would still not be able to pay for the health care of the U.S. Population. The military health care system had a budget of 40 billion for the 9 million people it covered in 2007. so lets convert that to cover the 300 million in the u.s. It would roughly cost 1.3 trillion dollars per year not counting for inflation, abuse, or fraud.

I laugh every time I hear somebody say that we can't affor national health care. You need to explain this to me.

You see we pay for health care nationally right now. We pay for it out of our pockets just the same as we would if it were through a tax system. The difference would be that nobody would be left out. So to say that we couldn't afford health care for the entire country is propogandized BS.

You came up with a number of 1.3 trillion dollars per year. How much are Americans paying for health care right now without Obamacare? Whatever the answer to that question is tells me that WE CAN afford it. Not only can we afford to pay for health care in this country but we can also afford to pay Insurance companies billions of dollars "extra".

If you want to argue over mandates and systems then that's fine but don't give me that BS line of "we can't afford it" anymore. We seem to be affording it right now with the shitty system we have now.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

What is your child's life worth? What is your wife's life worth? What is your parent's life worth? Can it ever cost too much to save their lives? If we don't think healthcare first and cost second we are barbarians. Do you think we could scrape enough away from the bloated defense budget to pay for our loved ones lives?

The question is not how much your loved ones lives are worth because they are priceless. The question is how much is your freedom worth? Because once the government has control of your health care they have total control of your lives. On a side note even if we cut the constitutionally required military budget to zero we would still not be able to pay for the health care of the U.S. Population. The military health care system had a budget of 40 billion for the 9 million people it covered in 2007. so lets convert that to cover the 300 million in the u.s. It would roughly cost 1.3 trillion dollars per year not counting for inflation, abuse, or fraud.

I laugh every time I hear somebody say that we can't affor national health care. You need to explain this to me.

You see we pay for health care nationally right now. We pay for it out of our pockets just the same as we would if it were through a tax system. The difference would be that nobody would be left out. So to say that we couldn't afford health care for the entire country is propogandized BS.

You came up with a number of 1.3 trillion dollars per year. How much are Americans paying for health care right now without Obamacare? Whatever the answer to that question is tells me that WE CAN afford it. Not only can we afford to pay for health care in this country but we can also afford to pay Insurance companies billions of dollars "extra".

If you want to argue over mandates and systems then that's fine but don't give me that BS line of "we can't afford it" anymore. We seem to be affording it right now with the shitty system we have now.

like I keep telling you it is about the freedom and the money. The obama administration said it would be 100 billion for ten years to cover the uninsured under obama care. The price tag is up to 500 billion and it is not even fully implimented yet. So lets put that into 300 million people that would be into the hundreds of trillions of dollars to cover every one. In europe they have national health care their tax burden is in the 60 to 70 percent range. Than you have the loss of freedom with the federal government in charge of your health care what is to stop them from saying you can not have health care for any reason. Say you get hurt and show up at the hospital and the government agent says I am sorry mister jones it says you are a gun owner so you are not covered. If you turn in your guns we will let you see a doctor.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Your last two sentences are a possibility. I hear about it all of the time now. I am sorry mister jones, it says that you don't have insurance so you are going to have to leave. If you can pay $8000 dollars a year for insurance then we'll be glad to take care of you then. Health care facilities all over the U.S. tell you that you can't have health care for many reasons.

The only difference between Insurance company run health care and government run health care is that the government works for every American citizen at less cost than a Private insurance company. A private insurance company doesn't even cover everyone that they take money from. You can make your premium payments for years and years and then find out when you actually need them you get denied. It happens every day.

I lose no more of my freedom through a government run health system than I lose in a private run health system. My insurance company tells me who I can and cannot have for a doctor. They tell me who I can and cannot have fill my prescriptions. Hell, I have one of the biggest insurance companies in the world and they won't pay for any local dermatologists anywhere in my area. If I want to get my moles checked and removed I have to go to another state. You call that freedom?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

As a point of fact, France and Sweden are at the high of Europe for tax collections, and both are around 48%. Germany is at 40%. Not 60%. They also realize that healthy citizens are not a cost, but a benefit to their nations.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:I thought obama care was a failure on two fronts. 1) it has not even been fully implemented yet and it already cost 5 times as much as they thought it would 2) the federal government has zero authority to force the citizens to purchase anything.

I can live with those failures.

As probably would 50 other million who currently don't have health insurance.

you do not understand if it cost way more than they thought already when it is fully implemented the cost will skyrocket causing health care costs and taxes to skyrocket. the government being allowed to force anyone to buy anything will lead to the government forcing you to buy anything they want.

Really, it will cause health care costs to skyrocket? Well, at least it won't change anything. And we still get 50 million people to have health insurance, plus all the rules like not cutting people off for pre-existing conditions.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Warren Run Would Change Everything

Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a leader of progressives on Capitol Hill. She led the charge against the part of the CRomnibus that gutted our financial regulations, and she is still fighting the White House over its nomination of bankster Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance in the Treasury Department.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system