I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

All5horizons1991

I'm for middle ground and baby steps. No details, but this might be a start. Pass the hidden tax onto those who benefit from it in the form of cheap basic health coverage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124353194170163283.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Group Tallies Families' 'Hidden Health Tax'
By PATRICK YOEST
WASHINGTON -- The average family with health insurance in 2008 paid a "hidden health tax" of $1,017 to cover the health-care costs of the uninsured, according to a report released Thursday by advocacy group Families USA.

The report by the group, which promotes universal health insurance, found that a total of $42.7 billion in care for those without insurance was passed on to health insurers. The insurers, in turn, passed on the costs through higher premiums, the report said.

The report comes as Congress debates proposals to provide health-insurance coverage to all Americans -- a key part of President Barack Obama's legislative agenda. The report uses data primarily from consulting firm Milliman Inc.

When those without insurance sought care, often in emergency rooms, government and charities picked up more than a quarter of the $116 billion tab last year, the report said. More than a third was paid for by those seeking the care, and the rest was passed on to health insurers and eventually to insured people through higher costs, it said.

"There is something clearly that affects the pocketbook as a result of the hidden health tax," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "I think the key to it is having a system that will make health more affordable."

Mr. Pollack appeared with Aetna Inc.'s chairman and chief executive, Ronald A. Williams, on Thursday at the National Press Club.

Mr. Williams, like many leaders in the health-insurance industry of late, has expressed support for expanding health coverage. He discussed such "cost-shifting" to health insurers as a major reason for covering more people.

"For every person who has private health insurance, there is a tax that is based on paying for the uncompensated care that these community hospitals have to collect," Mr. Williams said.

Proposals in Congress have centered on establishing a health-insurance "exchange," in which individuals who don't currently have insurance could purchase it. Most lawmakers anticipate that private insurers would play a major role in the exchange, and the insurers have indicated a willingness to participate in talks on the legislation.

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who has taken the lead on crafting health-overhaul legislation in the Senate, said Thursday the report showed the health-coverage "tax" will continue to grow unless Congress acts.

"We must repeal this hidden tax and lift the burden from American families and businesses by ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans," Mr. Baucus said in a statement.

Insurers have stopped short of supporting a public health-insurance plan that would compete with them in a health-insurance exchange. Mr. Williams said his company's spending in areas such as health technology had improved health coverage to the extent that it could play a major role in covering the uninsured.

"We've invested in tools, technologies and capabilities that really help close gaps in care," Mr. Williams said, adding that "generally, we much prefer private and public partnerships" to the public-plan option.

decides2dream

yes, that's a big part of the problem. the uninsured hitting up the ER for care, which is far more costly.....and usually wait until urgent need, rather than preventative/maintanence care......b/c in the ER they can get some help, whereas they are shut out so much elsewhere. drives up cost enormously. it's definitely all related, and you KNOW the costs have always gotten passed onto us, thus why the costs are getting so out of control. the insurance industry certainly isn't going to allow a tax cut into their profit margin, just pass it onwards to the insured. we always pay. thus why i truly believe a UHC is the way to go.......cut out so much fat, and get more care, earlier, and thus cheaper.....and it can help, overall, rein in healthcare spending. baby-steps is how it will happen tho, absolutely. a nation this large does not accept vast, sweeping change overnight....too many conflicting opinions and desires, absolutely have to tak it one step at a time. as long as i believe we truly are on that road to UHC.....i'm ready for the long haul, as long as we get there........


change...occurs in waves........

KDH12

jlew24asu wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

I can not keep up with you guys....

I have to work in order to keep my insurance....

I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)

call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked

talk about ignorance. wow. "for profit" doesnt mean people get fucked. profit is an excellent motivator...it brings innovation..it brings much needed technological advances. status quo socialism does not. like slight said, it beings everyone down to an equal level. which isn't an improvement. its a step backwards.

Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.

OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.

In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.

But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.

But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down

Abookamongstthemany

Obama on the issue of healthcare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barac ... h_Care.htm

Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007

FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007

---

Oh really? I wonder how that's playing out nowadays? Let's check:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/c ... cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... 08&ind=H03
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H03

And let's see how Obama's tune started to change now that the Dems are receiving all those donations from big pharma and hmo's:

"If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

slightofjeff

KDH12 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

I can not keep up with you guys....

I have to work in order to keep my insurance....

I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)

call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked

talk about ignorance. wow. "for profit" doesnt mean people get fucked. profit is an excellent motivator...it brings innovation..it brings much needed technological advances. status quo socialism does not. like slight said, it beings everyone down to an equal level. which isn't an improvement. its a step backwards.

Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.

OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.

In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.

But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.

But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down

I'm not sure how you can argue profit ISN'T a motivator. But have fun trying ...

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm

1. I can guarantee the government will make itself pretty immune from lawsuits somehow But I do agree that medical lawsuits are out of control. It's very interesting to see the bias there as lawyers look out for their own. Make a questionable choice as an attorney and you were just exercising professional judgment and don't owe anyone a penny. Do it as a doctor and you were a negligent maverick that should be sued into the poorhouse.

2. I'm ok with that. You don't lose the freedoms at all... it's a free market choice. Is the given item worth the price attached to it. Simple. I'm all for incentivizing behaviors like that, I'll take that over outright banning things any day. In fact, I very much wish we would switch to a 100% use/luxury tax based system and do away with income tax, but that's just me. As a guy that's a big fan of sin, I'm perfectly ok with "sin taxes."

3. That is a good point, and very worrisome to me. Though I am less worried about my medical information than other things. And I prefer it going to a government entity that has no choice but to cover me than having it go to a private company that can choose to drop me, tell me cancer is a pre-existing condition it won't cover, or sell the information to other companies to market drugs to me.

4. This is true, and a problem. But I also see a UHC system as potentially freeing us to get rid of things like social security and other programs, since health care costs are the chief draing on the finances of the elderly and disabled that social security was intended to help.

soulsinging

slightofjeff wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?

That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.

And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.

I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.

That's interesting stuff.

Trust me, I know from bitter experience. If I had worked a helluva lot harder than I did, I might be able to land a job with the US attorneys or a PD's office somewhere. Instead I'm stuck with a big money gig at a national law firm because my grades were mediocre. Kinda fucked up eh?

WaveCameCrashin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Obama on the issue of healthcare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barac ... h_Care.htm

Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007

FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007

---

Oh really? I wonder how that's playing out nowadays? Let's check:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/c ... cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... 08&ind=H03
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H03

And let's see how Obama's tune started to change now that the Dems are receiving all those donations from big pharma and hmo's:

"If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Obama's pretension that no one will find charges IN his or her current health insurance plans except for a magical reduction in their cost by $2,500 a year is a fools proposition.

private health insurers will be no more private than TARP funded banks or Govt subsidized are in Obama's America. They will be controlled by govt. health care workers who will approve treatments,limit drug use,hold down medical incomes and bring their cos cutting programs to bear. Inevitably, their ax will fall on the oldest and sickest among us,those least "deserving" of our newly limited and under Obama's program diminishing health care resources.

_

I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't have universal health care because our quality of care will decline. We're such an instant gratification culture that we are more concerned with how long it will take to get care than what the outcome of that care will be. Let's remember that the United States is not the stellar model of health that we seem to think we are. We actually rank quite poorly when it comes to health outcomes, and are commonly outranked by countries that DO have universal health care. Here are just a few stats I pulled quickly off an American Public Health Association website:

•U.S. life expectancy ranks 46th in the world, behind Japan, most of Europe, and even countries such as South Korea and Jordan.
•A baby born today in the U.S is more likely to die before its first birthday than in almost any other developed country.
•Nearly one in 20 residents in the nation’s capital are HIV-positive.
•All minorities, except Alaska Natives, have a rate of type 2 diabetes that is two to six times greater than that of the white population.

http://www.generationpublichealth.org/pg_educate.htm

_

slightofjeff wrote:

If all doctors are now essentially government workers, and make civil servant's salaries, what is the financial impetus to become a doctor?

Take out several hundred thousand dollars in student loans, spend six years in medical school ... and then make 30K a year? No thanks.

We're going to see a shortage of doctors. Or, at least, a shortage of good ones.

It's a misconception that a universal, single-payer health plan would equate to socialized medicine where the government runs the hospitals and the medical staff are government employees. We would still have individual hospitals that employ doctors, run things as they see fit, and compete with each other for business. It's just that when it comes time for the patients to pay their bills, the money would come from a government source. Kind of like how you can get Medicaid now and use it at whichever private hospital will accept it, only every hospital and doctor will accept it now.

As for the income issue, since they won't be government employees, they won't be making civil servants' salaries. Many, many doctors already work in places whose primary sources of reimbursement are government programs and they haven't quit yet, and keep on coming. And part of healthcare reform should include making medical training affordable. By the way, I think it's offensive to all the wonderful healthcare professionals we have out there when people suggest they're just in it for the money (or would leave without the money).

_

slightofjeff wrote:

If you will go back and read my posts, never once do I flatly say "this can't be done." I freely admit that there needs to be some way to cover the poorest of the poor, people who can't afford it. But it has to be done without screwing up what is currently working for 260 million people, too. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that sort of thing.

I haven't seen a plan yet that doesn't have some some serious baby-throwing-out attached to it.

It's nice to have hope, but there is a fine line between hope and naivete. I could stand on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and have hope I can fly. That's all well and good until ... splat.

Just because 260 million people have health insurance does NOT mean this system is working for them.

17.1 million people under age 65 were UNDERinsured in 2003, including 9.3 million people with employer-based insurance. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/underinsured.html

Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bankruptcies. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php

_

decides2dream wrote:

ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....

:idea:
Maybe you could compose your posts in Word and then just cut and paste - that way you wouldn't lose what you had written.

_

jlew24asu wrote:

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

Actually, the opposite is true. Malpractice costs would significantly decrease. (Yes, that's just one more way to save money.) This is because the major part of malpractice payouts are to cover future medical expenses after something has gone wrong, but with universal health care there would be no future medical expenses.

jlew24asu wrote:

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

Says who?

jlew24asu wrote:

# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

Patient CARE is currently being compromised due to fragmented health information, so we need (and will probably get) this reform regardless of other health care reform.

I would even argue that patient confidentiality is compromised WITHOUT centrally-located health information because of the extra people the info must pass through to get from one doctor to the next.

jlew24asu wrote:

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.


http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm

Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.

_

Sorry for all the posts, but I've had a long day at work and was just able to catch up on this thread. (Doesn't anyone else have a job during the day??)

WaveCameCrashin

44% of the drugs approved by the canadian health care authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the Health care system due to their high cost,as a result the death rate is 16% higher in canada than the united states. we will pay for the attempt to save 2 trillion with our lives. In canada colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer is 25% higher than the U.S.( Even though canada has a much smaller proportion of poor people,whose frequently bad diets make them more prone to the disease.

WaveCameCrashin

Once Obama care is put through to cover everyone,with no commensurate increase in the resources available,the change will be forever.The viscous cycle of cuts in medical resources and in the number of Doctors and nurses will doom Health Care in this country. This wanton destruction will not be reversible by any bill or program.A crucial part of our quality of life will be gone forever.

Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x

Kel Varnsen

KDH12 wrote:

Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.

I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.

says who? you?

is eating a right?

inmytree

prfctlefts wrote:

44% of the drugs approved by the canadian health care authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the Health care system due to their high cost,as a result the death rate is 16% higher in canada than the united states. we will pay for the attempt to save 2 trillion with our lives. In canada colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer is 25% higher than the U.S.( Even though canada has a much smaller proportion of poor people,whose frequently bad diets make them more prone to the disease.

um, we're talking about the US, not Canada...

I know you want to use these non-sourced stats and paint a horrible picture, which is fine...but they don't dissuade me...

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.

says who? you?

is eating a right?

great question...is eating a right...? gosh, I don't know...what's your stance on this thought provoking question...?

I do wonder, if a parent doesn't feed a child, would that parent get in trouble...?