I've heard the "it works in other countries" line, too. And maybe it does.
However, I was recently on a flight home from New York, seated next to a guy from England. We get to talking, as often happens on cross-country flights, and he told me he was on his way to the States for knee replacement surgery.
He wasn't going to get it back home, because there was a three-year waiting list. His doctor told him he needed the operation. If he didn't get it, the pain would quickly move from "uncomfortable" to "unbearable" to "excruciating."
But to get it from the government, he'd have to wait three years.
He said screw it. He'd pay for it himself and get it now. In the United States.
I know this is just one man's story. Maybe government-run health care works for some people. But I look around at everything else the government gets its fingers in. Without fail, everything they touch turns to shit.
I'm fine with the health plan I have now. I don't need or want the government's.
3 years seems a bit excessive, do they really hav that many people needing knee replacement surgeries? maybe it's a funding issue? it's odd
i have a friend who lives here in the states, she even works for a hospital....she developed some illness and the doctor's were baffled...after several appointments with different types of doctors certain levels started going crazy, her ob/gyn told her certain forms of cancer behave in the same way and she needs to see a specialist....
so, with her private insurance plan she scheduled an appointment and was told it would be 2 months before she could be seen by a specialist....
i guess people have to wait a ridiculous amount of time no matter if you're on a government run plan or a private for profit plan
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
i can't remember the figure now but in January my former company had yearly reports if wanted. buried deep in it it had insurance costs in 2 different places, what blue cross & blue shield collected in premiums and pages later how much they spent....they collected millions more just from my company than they paid in benefits!
about Obama's plan i don't think $100trillion over 10 years is worth leaving 37 million people still uninsured
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'd almost be up for helping Americans and paying a little tax to fund this if they would stop supplying social services to illegal aliens and people who refuse to work.
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
I'd almost be up for helping Americans and paying a little tax to fund this if they would stop supplying social services to illegal aliens and people who refuse to work.
how do illegal aliens eat and get clothes and gas if they don't work????
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
I'd love to see a response to this post explaining how private health care is working and is the way to go and free markets are the best way to handle health care.
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
I'd love to see a response to this post explaining how private health care is working and is the way to go and free markets are the best way to handle health care.
private health care is working. we just need a way to control costs better. and I believe government regulation can help with that. even if that requires limits in pay, limits in how much rates can be raised, and the government subsidizing some of the costs.
but what I dont think we be an improvement is government taking over 100% of all aspects of healthcare.
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
agreed...
My sister in law is completely opposed to UHC but just about six months ago she was diagnosed with melanoma on her knee....they did the biopsy and it came back melanoma...they contact her to see a specialist to remove it and they scheduled her for SIX WEEKS into the future....I mean come on she just got told that she has cancer...one of the deadliest forms....and now she has to sit around for SIX WEEKS???!!! outrageous!
she lives in Ohio so my wife started calling Docs in Indianapolis where they found one who got her in a few days later....obviously she had the choice to call others but I was amazed that the specialist would actually schedule an appt that far in advance....she met with the guy in Indy and had some lymph nodes removed and had a few follow up visits before the other appt would have even occurred
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Private health plans are now to the point that a government-run can't be any worse. We pay a lot of money every month for family health coverage. Up to this year, it has been a reasonably worthy investment in that during the few times we have relied on it for something big, it's been there for us. About a month ago, though, we were given a heads up that despite the hefty sum we throw at our insurance every month, beginning July 1st, they now will require a $500 per person per year deductible before they pay anything and IN ADDITION will now require that we pay 20% of the costs of all procedures. So that's great. The hundreds we pay monthly is for what exactly? We'll be paying over $500 a month for insurance, a $500 a year deductible on top of that, a $500 hospital admission fee on top of that and 20% of a procedure. If you procedure runs $6,000, then you're going to end up paying $1,200 of that. Plus the monthly, plus the admission--so that's like $2,200. And that's if you have some little thing taken care of. And that's just for one person needing help in one month. If you have a heart attack or something...good God...what will that run you? In no time at all, you'd be putting up your home to pay hospital costs...and this is after being "fully insured." No wonder the leading cause of bankruptcy is health costs.
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
I'd love to see a response to this post explaining how private health care is working and is the way to go and free markets are the best way to handle health care.
private health care is working. we just need a way to control costs better. and I believe government regulation can help with that. even if that requires limits in pay, limits in how much rates can be raised, and the government subsidizing some of the costs.
but what I dont think we be an improvement is government taking over 100% of all aspects of healthcare.
To the best of my understanding, single payer health care does not convey any government control of health care. It just means that all health insurance companies are gone and the government writes the check when you get sick with the premiums being your taxes.
The inevitable end of for-profit health care is exactly what this poster describes. You cannot set rate limits and maintain the for-profit health care industry. It is built upon the premise that, no matter what, the insurance company turns a profit. This means that whenever someone gets cancer, the insurance company does not bear the cost (which is what you contracted for)... YOU do through rate increases. In addition, you pay double because not only do you pay for the procedures others have through your rates increases, you pay for the uninsured because costs skyrocket when doctors and hospitals have to increase the charges to compensate for people with no health care that can't pay at all.
Rate caps and subsidies are bandaids and are going to impact the quality of care just as much as you fear a national program would. You'll quickly find that your insurance will cover essentially nothing, and only then through one day who will charge you whatever the insurance company says he should, because protecting their profit is priority number one, and they WILL find ways to skirt any rate caps or whatever you want to place upon them. And in the end, isn't comprehensive legislation setting limits on all aspects of the insurance industry going to entail a helluva lot more government interference in the health care industry than just having a uniform government plan that covers everything and everyone?
its a tricky slippery slope, no question. lots of pros and cons to balance. I suppose there will never be a perfect system. any and every system will be give and take.
what I fear, higher costs, fewer choices, lower quality. what I don't want, is people dying because they can't afford going to the hospital. what I do want is choices, the best quality care, and innovation.
maybe more money should be thrown at public clinics and make them more advanced.
I'm also not here supporting the insurance industry either. but I'm still not sure what the best solution for them is.
its a tricky slippery slope, no question. lots of pros and cons to balance. I suppose there will never be a perfect system. any and every system will be give and take.
what I fear, higher costs, fewer choices, lower quality. what I don't want, is people dying because they can't afford going to the hospital. what I do want is choices, the best quality care, and innovation.
maybe more money should be thrown at public clinics and make them more advanced.
I'm also not here supporting the insurance industry either. but I'm still not sure what the best solution for them is.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
its a tricky slippery slope, no question. lots of pros and cons to balance. I suppose there will never be a perfect system. any and every system will be give and take.
what I fear, higher costs, fewer choices, lower quality. what I don't want, is people dying because they can't afford going to the hospital. what I do want is choices, the best quality care, and innovation.
maybe more money should be thrown at public clinics and make them more advanced.
I'm also not here supporting the insurance industry either. but I'm still not sure what the best solution for them is.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I agree for the most part. but I don't think the alternative is better. I'll take it from the link I posted in the other thread...
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?
"In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion... Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured."
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?
In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion. Our data help explain why Canadians spend 40 percent less on
health care, yet receive more hospital care and make more doctor’s visits (28) and
enjoy better access to care (29). Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured. http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_US_v_Canada_Paper.pdf
i love posts with such sources at the ready.
honestly, could just bold the whole thing.......;)
and 1999 levels...imagine what those costs are now...10 yeard later? :shock:
seriously, the cost savings of simply doing away with the 'for profit' nature of healthcare.....would be IMMENSE. and as to failures or shortcomings of other government programs, in and of itself...does not doom healthcare. medicare is operating in a for profit environment, perhaps with UHC...while being unnecessary at that point, but w/o profit.....it would function far better. interesting too, that patients in the medicare program, overall, have a higher rating of satisifaction of care than those in the private, for-profit center. so medicare may not be doing everything right, but it ain't all wrong either....there Is hope that it is doable.
cutting admin costs are nice. but the government is NOT going to eliminate administration expenses. will the be lower? probably. but they will still exist and by a tax payer expense.
second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.
"In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion... Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured."
can the US trim admin costs to Canadian levels? we are 10 times the size of them. again, is there anyway to force the private sector to trim admin costs without going to UHC? I bet there is.
this doesnt address this however...
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
cutting admin costs are nice. but the government is NOT going to eliminate administration expenses. will the be lower? probably. but they will still exist and by a tax payer expense.
second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.
of course there still will be SOME administrative costs....but vastly less. and of course we'll still pay for it, we pay for it now, and then some.
what is the motivator for all the scientists who every year, on government grants, do innovative research?profit is not necessary for motivation. absolutely, those doing the work need to be well-paid, but we don't need CEOs and stockholders for that. so you bet, i do think profit is a very dirty word in the instance of healthcare.
why are you motivated to take photographs? b/c you gleen satisfaction from it, enjoy it....like learning, doing more, etc. this holds true for so many, no matter their occupation. i am sure for a great many researchers...sure....they want to make a good living...bu it also comes down to satisfaction in doing something good, improving the world. again, we don't need CEOs for that.
and idk why i even ask.....we've gone round and round this in the past. glutton for punishment? perhaps...;)
and....we may be 10x the size of canada....all that means is we would then have 10x the taxbase. i do not understand how you continually miss this point. it';s all relative/proportional.
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
of course there still will be SOME administrative costs....but vastly less. and of course we'll still pay for it, we pay for it now, and then some.
wrong. not everyone pays for it. we have choices whether we want health insurance. its not a expense some see. but with UHC, we'll be billed for it.
again, 2/3 of workers in this country receive some form of assistance with their healthcare premiums from their employers. take that away, and peoples taxes go way up. for example, I pay $80 a month. I would most certainly pay in the hundreds per month.
what is the motivator for all the scientists who every year, on government grants, do innovative research?profit is not necessary for motivation. absolutely, those doing the work need to be well-paid, but we don't need CEOs and stockholders for that. so you bet, i do think profit is a very dirty word in the instance of healthcare.
why are you motivated to take photographs? b/c you gleen satisfaction from it, enjoy it....like learning, doing more, etc. this holds true for so many, no matter their occupation. i am sure for a great many researchers...sure....they want to make a good living...bu it also comes down to satisfaction in doing something good, improving the world. again, we don't need CEOs for that.
and idk why i even ask.....we've gone round and round this in the past. glutton for punishment? perhaps...;)
I'm talking about healthcare specifically. doctors, nurses, scientists, etc..not CEOs and stockholders. they are motivated, in part, by the money they make. yes of course they are motivated to help people, thats probably their top motivation. but this continually gets ignored from the link I posted in the other thread..
"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."
and....we may be 10x the size of canada....all that means is we would then have 10x the taxbase. i do not understand how you continually miss this point. it';s all relative/proportional.
Mo money Mo problems. its not relative. 10x the amount of money leaves much more room for waste, mismanagement, and rising costs.
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
jlew....we will never agree, and i will never convince you, and honestly....i don't feel the need to convince you. yes, i do debate points you make, when i feel they are false....but your beliefs are just so counter to mine...i HAVe countered just about every point you have made a few times over, to no avail...so yea.....the impasse....
as to the insurance comapnies and their profits...healthcare premiums have to play some role, a rather large one i'd imagine, in the PROFIT area of that equation. i think the last page conor summed it up rather nicely. you didn't have much of a retort for his comments...b/c yea...it makes sense.
just looking at one CEO:
Williams earned $24,300,112 in total compensation for 2008, with more than half of that ($13,537,365) coming from option awards. He also received an additional $6,456,630 in stock awards to go along with his base salary of $1,091,764.
Personal use of a corporate aircraft and vehicle, as well as financial planning and 401(k) company matches added up to $101,487 for Williams.
forget even all the bells and whistles....just looking at SALARY. over 1 million dollars. one CEO for one health insurance company. what is that about? PROFIT. he is not making tht salary b/c he is doing so much for the betterment of HEALTH, he is making that salary b/c he is doing so for the betterment of the corporations BOTTOMLINE.
you may be ok with that...i am not. think of all the health insurance companies....all the CEOs...their salaries....think of all the stockholders and their profits.....WHY do we want a system of healthcare based on making profits for stockholders? it should be about HEALTH ALONE. again, you may not think so...but i do.
and even when given the we have 10x the people thus 10x the taxbase, you just greet that with....yea, we'll have much more waste too. you are just so utterly convinved in your own mind that it can't work - or don't want it to work - so yea......enjoy.........
as i've said often eough, i am hoping more and more of our fellow citizens DO see the positives of UHC far outweigh the negatives, and so worth it, long-term, for the *health* of this country, of all forms.
profit and healthcare should not even be uttered in the same sentence.....but hey, we all see the world thru our own lens.
To the best of my understanding, single payer health care does not convey any government control of health care. It just means that all health insurance companies are gone and the government writes the check when you get sick with the premiums being your taxes.
The inevitable end of for-profit health care is exactly what this poster describes. You cannot set rate limits and maintain the for-profit health care industry. It is built upon the premise that, no matter what, the insurance company turns a profit. This means that whenever someone gets cancer, the insurance company does not bear the cost (which is what you contracted for)... YOU do through rate increases. In addition, you pay double because not only do you pay for the procedures others have through your rates increases, you pay for the uninsured because costs skyrocket when doctors and hospitals have to increase the charges to compensate for people with no health care that can't pay at all.
Rate caps and subsidies are bandaids and are going to impact the quality of care just as much as you fear a national program would. You'll quickly find that your insurance will cover essentially nothing, and only then through one day who will charge you whatever the insurance company says he should, because protecting their profit is priority number one, and they WILL find ways to skirt any rate caps or whatever you want to place upon them. And in the end, isn't comprehensive legislation setting limits on all aspects of the insurance industry going to entail a helluva lot more government interference in the health care industry than just having a uniform government plan that covers everything and everyone?
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
Comments
3 years seems a bit excessive, do they really hav that many people needing knee replacement surgeries? maybe it's a funding issue? it's odd
i have a friend who lives here in the states, she even works for a hospital....she developed some illness and the doctor's were baffled...after several appointments with different types of doctors certain levels started going crazy, her ob/gyn told her certain forms of cancer behave in the same way and she needs to see a specialist....
so, with her private insurance plan she scheduled an appointment and was told it would be 2 months before she could be seen by a specialist....
i guess people have to wait a ridiculous amount of time no matter if you're on a government run plan or a private for profit plan
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Sincerely, if the Obama plan can give insurers a run for the money they are now stealing from our family, I'm all for it. It is bullshit to be paying an insurer over $6,000 a year and still be expected to pay potentially many more thousands on top of that. So what if my taxes go up? We are being "taxed" way better than $6K per year by a private entity as it is, having to wait ridiculous times to see specialists (6 months to see a GI specialist!), etc., as it is. I am pissed off and happy to see something trying to come along and challenge the for-profit motive of the current insurers. To see people take home $10 million a year while other, truly ill people are having to sell their homes to pay that salary is SICKENING. The average American is being exploited and shortchanged for the benefit of the elite, rich few. It is time to stop this BS.
i can't remember the figure now but in January my former company had yearly reports if wanted. buried deep in it it had insurance costs in 2 different places, what blue cross & blue shield collected in premiums and pages later how much they spent....they collected millions more just from my company than they paid in benefits!
about Obama's plan i don't think $100trillion over 10 years is worth leaving 37 million people still uninsured
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
EXCELLENT post!
how do illegal aliens eat and get clothes and gas if they don't work????
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
not knocking it.....just tight
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I'd love to see a response to this post explaining how private health care is working and is the way to go and free markets are the best way to handle health care.
private health care is working. we just need a way to control costs better. and I believe government regulation can help with that. even if that requires limits in pay, limits in how much rates can be raised, and the government subsidizing some of the costs.
but what I dont think we be an improvement is government taking over 100% of all aspects of healthcare.
agreed...
My sister in law is completely opposed to UHC but just about six months ago she was diagnosed with melanoma on her knee....they did the biopsy and it came back melanoma...they contact her to see a specialist to remove it and they scheduled her for SIX WEEKS into the future....I mean come on she just got told that she has cancer...one of the deadliest forms....and now she has to sit around for SIX WEEKS???!!! outrageous!
she lives in Ohio so my wife started calling Docs in Indianapolis where they found one who got her in a few days later....obviously she had the choice to call others but I was amazed that the specialist would actually schedule an appt that far in advance....she met with the guy in Indy and had some lymph nodes removed and had a few follow up visits before the other appt would have even occurred
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
To the best of my understanding, single payer health care does not convey any government control of health care. It just means that all health insurance companies are gone and the government writes the check when you get sick with the premiums being your taxes.
The inevitable end of for-profit health care is exactly what this poster describes. You cannot set rate limits and maintain the for-profit health care industry. It is built upon the premise that, no matter what, the insurance company turns a profit. This means that whenever someone gets cancer, the insurance company does not bear the cost (which is what you contracted for)... YOU do through rate increases. In addition, you pay double because not only do you pay for the procedures others have through your rates increases, you pay for the uninsured because costs skyrocket when doctors and hospitals have to increase the charges to compensate for people with no health care that can't pay at all.
Rate caps and subsidies are bandaids and are going to impact the quality of care just as much as you fear a national program would. You'll quickly find that your insurance will cover essentially nothing, and only then through one day who will charge you whatever the insurance company says he should, because protecting their profit is priority number one, and they WILL find ways to skirt any rate caps or whatever you want to place upon them. And in the end, isn't comprehensive legislation setting limits on all aspects of the insurance industry going to entail a helluva lot more government interference in the health care industry than just having a uniform government plan that covers everything and everyone?
what I fear, higher costs, fewer choices, lower quality. what I don't want, is people dying because they can't afford going to the hospital. what I do want is choices, the best quality care, and innovation.
maybe more money should be thrown at public clinics and make them more advanced.
I'm also not here supporting the insurance industry either. but I'm still not sure what the best solution for them is.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I agree for the most part. but I don't think the alternative is better. I'll take it from the link I posted in the other thread...
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?
www.google.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion... Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_US_v_Canada_Paper.pdf
i love posts with such sources at the ready.
honestly, could just bold the whole thing.......;)
and 1999 levels...imagine what those costs are now...10 yeard later? :shock:
seriously, the cost savings of simply doing away with the 'for profit' nature of healthcare.....would be IMMENSE. and as to failures or shortcomings of other government programs, in and of itself...does not doom healthcare. medicare is operating in a for profit environment, perhaps with UHC...while being unnecessary at that point, but w/o profit.....it would function far better. interesting too, that patients in the medicare program, overall, have a higher rating of satisifaction of care than those in the private, for-profit center. so medicare may not be doing everything right, but it ain't all wrong either....there Is hope that it is doable.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.
can the US trim admin costs to Canadian levels? we are 10 times the size of them. again, is there anyway to force the private sector to trim admin costs without going to UHC? I bet there is.
this doesnt address this however...
How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?
of course there still will be SOME administrative costs....but vastly less. and of course we'll still pay for it, we pay for it now, and then some.
what is the motivator for all the scientists who every year, on government grants, do innovative research?profit is not necessary for motivation. absolutely, those doing the work need to be well-paid, but we don't need CEOs and stockholders for that. so you bet, i do think profit is a very dirty word in the instance of healthcare.
why are you motivated to take photographs? b/c you gleen satisfaction from it, enjoy it....like learning, doing more, etc. this holds true for so many, no matter their occupation. i am sure for a great many researchers...sure....they want to make a good living...bu it also comes down to satisfaction in doing something good, improving the world. again, we don't need CEOs for that.
and idk why i even ask.....we've gone round and round this in the past. glutton for punishment? perhaps...;)
and....we may be 10x the size of canada....all that means is we would then have 10x the taxbase. i do not understand how you continually miss this point. it';s all relative/proportional.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
hasn't that at least been somewhat addressed:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=103572
very first post.
wouldn't ALL of that $$$ be coming from healthcare premiums? isn't that how health insurance companies derive their profits?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
wrong. not everyone pays for it. we have choices whether we want health insurance. its not a expense some see. but with UHC, we'll be billed for it.
again, 2/3 of workers in this country receive some form of assistance with their healthcare premiums from their employers. take that away, and peoples taxes go way up. for example, I pay $80 a month. I would most certainly pay in the hundreds per month.
I'm talking about healthcare specifically. doctors, nurses, scientists, etc..not CEOs and stockholders. they are motivated, in part, by the money they make. yes of course they are motivated to help people, thats probably their top motivation. but this continually gets ignored from the link I posted in the other thread..
"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."
Mo money Mo problems. its not relative. 10x the amount of money leaves much more room for waste, mismanagement, and rising costs.
no, that money comes from outside investors via stock purchases and part ownership in the company.
as to the insurance comapnies and their profits...healthcare premiums have to play some role, a rather large one i'd imagine, in the PROFIT area of that equation. i think the last page conor summed it up rather nicely. you didn't have much of a retort for his comments...b/c yea...it makes sense.
just looking at one CEO:
Williams earned $24,300,112 in total compensation for 2008, with more than half of that ($13,537,365) coming from option awards. He also received an additional $6,456,630 in stock awards to go along with his base salary of $1,091,764.
Personal use of a corporate aircraft and vehicle, as well as financial planning and 401(k) company matches added up to $101,487 for Williams.
forget even all the bells and whistles....just looking at SALARY. over 1 million dollars. one CEO for one health insurance company. what is that about? PROFIT. he is not making tht salary b/c he is doing so much for the betterment of HEALTH, he is making that salary b/c he is doing so for the betterment of the corporations BOTTOMLINE.
you may be ok with that...i am not. think of all the health insurance companies....all the CEOs...their salaries....think of all the stockholders and their profits.....WHY do we want a system of healthcare based on making profits for stockholders? it should be about HEALTH ALONE. again, you may not think so...but i do.
and even when given the we have 10x the people thus 10x the taxbase, you just greet that with....yea, we'll have much more waste too.
as i've said often eough, i am hoping more and more of our fellow citizens DO see the positives of UHC far outweigh the negatives, and so worth it, long-term, for the *health* of this country, of all forms.
profit and healthcare should not even be uttered in the same sentence.....but hey, we all see the world thru our own lens.
exactly.
and...
exactly.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?