profit motivating a system to heal the sick and wounded is criminal. that's the bottom line.
you're always going to get the cheap wheelchairs and sub-par treatment under this system. one way to avoid that is to have universal health care, not a profit based coverage plan, not universal insurance, but universal government run insurance. as long as the government isn't in it to make money-hey they work for us theoretically-there should be no problem.
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
2- Stop saying it is impossible, that is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. If that is the case then you probably think reducing dependence on foreign oil is impossible, or improving the nations public schools is impossible, or going to the moon is impossible..... oh wait...... so many advancements have been made in the last 50-75 years that that to say fixing our health care is impossible is just lazy
maybe we could get UHC and throw in some shiny new stealth bombers or more r and d into bombs that could kill people more effectively for the conservatives....
Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75.
Background
A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded
those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed
care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased
administrative costs.
Methods
For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers,
employers’ health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners’ offices, nursing
homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians,
employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes,
and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending,
we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative
costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in
administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.
Results
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States,
or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration
accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States
and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance
program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers
was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’
administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for
by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew
from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance-
industry personnel.)
Conclusions
The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown
to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs
could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
Government run health care is not without some problems, but I've worked in a country that has universal health care and im working in a country that doesn't. So i have experienced both.
The one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. The same thing does not happen here.
And thats a fact. What good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment.
Crock of shit.
Meanwhile, let's keep funding the never ending war. Who cares about our own citizens?
Here's some more information (with details/sources at the link below):
• Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.
• Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending. Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.
• Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.
• Business pays less than 20 percent of our nation’s health bill. It is a misnomer that our health system is “privately financed” (60 percent is paid by taxes and the remaining 20 percent is out-of-pocket payments).
• For-profit, investor-owned hospitals, HMOs and nursing homes have higher costs and score lower on most measures of quality than their non-profit counterparts.
• The US could save enough on administrative costs (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system to cover all of the uninsured.
• Competition among investor-owned, for-profit entities has raised costs, reduced quality in the US.
The one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. The same thing does not happen here.
And thats a fact. What good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment.
Exactly. What we tend to overlook when we talk about rationing or long waits is that, although all systems have finite resources, universal systems "ration"/prioritize according to need, while our system rations according to who has the money to pay. I feel less sorry for Joe Blow who has to wait for a knee replacement when I remember that he was bumped back in line by someone whose life depended on it. So the question we should be asking ourselves isn't "Should Joe Blow have to wait for a knee replacement?," it's "Should Jane Blow be allowed to die so that Joe Blow with more money gets his knee replacement sooner?"
Here's the trick, from someone who comes from a quasi-socialist country. Look at some of the countries at the top of the standard of living indexes - New Zealand, and the Scandanavian countries... socialism has its benefits and can work well, but it has to be done RIGHT in order to work. Otherwise you just end up with a mess like your situation. I wouldn't want George Bush running a Dairy Queen (to steal a Mark Cuban line), let alone a nation where he had more control than he did for the last eight years, and it's too early to tell with Obama - but if you get rid of the incompetent assholes on both sides of the aisle in Washington you might find it isn't as bad as Fox News says it is (socialism isn't Soviet-era communism).
Then again, if you get rid of the incompetent guys in Washington, you'd be left with two or three people standing around wondering where their co-workers went lol
I hear that argument alot.."well it works in new zealand"...America is one of the largest and most complex countries in the world. trying to implement a government run health care system is nearly impossible. but I think Obama is looking for a different type of "socialist" health care system. I think his plan has a chance, but is too expensive IMO.
I sometimes wonder if, in the long run, it wouldn't be cheaper. Think of all the bureacracy you could lose... people spending hours shuffling paper to decide if you qualify for medicare/medicaid benefits, what those will covers, whether or not your disease is eligible. That might be enough to fund regular doctor's visits right there... and preventative medicine could cut down big time on the kind of "wait until a huge crisis last minute" expenses most people opt for since they can't afford a doctor. In addition, if there's an option to still buy your own insurance/doctor's fees, the competition will drive prices down all around. If everyone has free health care, doctors and hospitals and pharmacies are going to have to start bringing their services down to compete. And that's a good thing.
this still all comes down to money. no matter how much bureaucracy you cut down, its still going to go into the Trillions. if we can't afford Meidcare for the elderly, how are we going to afford it for EVERYONE else? I know one helpful method...cut costs. is that the strategy you want when it comes to your healthcare?
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
2- Stop saying it is impossible, that is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. If that is the case then you probably think reducing dependence on foreign oil is impossible, or improving the nations public schools is impossible, or going to the moon is impossible..... oh wait...... so many advancements have been made in the last 50-75 years that that to say fixing our health care is impossible is just lazy
all you have done is call people stupid and ignorant who don't agree with you. well done.
and yes, I think UHC is impossible and unaffordable. the problem with you people is that you think FREE healthcare actually means its FREE. yet its anything but.
heres a question for you...should illegal aliens qualify for this free healthcare?
It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.
Yes
1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.
2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.
4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.
5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.
6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.
No
1. 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.
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
10. 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.
11. 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. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
14. 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. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
I think you need to realize that private-property is a thing of the past....things will need to be decided by the community, but in terms of a large house on the water, that won't exist. If it does, it won't belong to one individual or 1 family. private property does not exist.
And it also important to remember that there will be no groups or institutions exploiting our labor, things like resources will be plentiful. There won' t be a fight for the good stuff, because we will all be getting the good stuff.
art will be celebrated, and again, private property does not exist, so no 1 individual is going to own a painting, and have it on his wall. If the artist wants a friend to have something he created, he can let him hang it on his wall for a time.
But the idea that I have better meat than you, or the idea that I have better property than you, or the idea that i'm better than you because i have this painting simply will not exist in an anarchist society. Private property does not exist.
Where are the people who are willing to give up the concept of private property? People always want the things they can't have and they always want better things I don't see how it is possible to get rid of that. And even if you did find a group of people who were willing to give that up, with no currency and no private property how would you deal with the outside world. A small society can't completly provide for themselves unless you want to live in small huts and eat the same food every day and never travel (gee that sounds like fun). There comes a point where you would need to trade with the outside world and those people take cash.
And I am not sure how you can say the idea of the better meat won't exist since like I said people want better things, and there is always a shortage of the better things, and when you don't have money those better things essentially become currency. And since where on a Pearl Jam board, what do you do if the band comes to town? How do you pay them? How do you determine who gets tickets if the venue they want to play in is too small to fit everyone? Once those tickets are distributed how do you stop people from trading them for other goods and services?
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.
I'm going to go back and look, but from memory, I remember thinking that under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to buy into the gov't package. You could still go through a carrier like you have now. Like I said though, I could be wrong. I probably am wrong, but I'll admit it.
The problem with that is, nobody would be able to afford their current health care package. My package is subsidized by my employer. If the government is giving away "free health care" -- what is the impetus for my company to continue to subsidize? They are cutting costs and not paying a dime anymore. Which means I have to foot the entire bill, which I can't. Which means I have to use the government's crappy health plan.
Which means I'm better off if the government leaves me the hell alone.
I'm all for providing some level of health care to people who can't afford it. I'm not so gung-ho about the government fucking my shit up to do it. This "it's not fair for you to pay for it if other people can't afford it" crap is ridiculous.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
I don't have the answer. If I did, I would run for president, and I would probably win (so long as I could talk good!). But I do know a bad answer when I see one.
For example: I'm no doctor. I don't know the cure for my grandmother's medical condition as outlined in the first post of this thread. But I DO know the answer isn't to shoot her in the face.
Same here. I don't know what the answer to the health-care debate is. I just know the answer isn't a government system under which I pay the same (or more) as I am paying now for lesser, more inefficient care.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
I don't have the answer. If I did, I would run for president, and I would probably win (so long as I could talk good!). But I do know a bad answer when I see one.
For example: I'm no doctor. I don't know the cure for my grandmother's medical condition as outlined in the first post of this thread. But I DO know the answer isn't to shoot her in the face.
Same here. I don't know what the answer to the health-care debate is. I just know the answer isn't a government system under which I pay the same (or more) as I am paying now for lesser, more inefficient care.
you seem to have some sort of knowledge as to how exactly UHC would be (even though you "don't know the answer")...as if you can predict the future...
if private insurance is the best, why don't seniors ditch there crappy healthcare and get into the private insurance system....?
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
I don't have the answer. If I did, I would run for president, and I would probably win (so long as I could talk good!). But I do know a bad answer when I see one.
For example: I'm no doctor. I don't know the cure for my grandmother's medical condition as outlined in the first post of this thread. But I DO know the answer isn't to shoot her in the face.
Same here. I don't know what the answer to the health-care debate is. I just know the answer isn't a government system under which I pay the same (or more) as I am paying now for lesser, more inefficient care.
you seem to have some sort of knowledge as to how exactly UHC would be (even though you "don't know the answer")...as if you can predict the future...
if private insurance is the best, why don't seniors ditch there crappy healthcare and get into the private insurance system....?
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
um....a.....ok....
let me understand...you want to keep something that you know you can't afford without you employer because you somehow know the gov't product will be inferior....
interesting...how do you know the gov't product will be inferior...? I'm guessing you really don't know but you've bought into this notion and want to push this notion as fact, when the only fact is you don't know if it will be inferior....
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
um....a.....ok....
let me understand...you want to keep something that you know you can't afford without you employer because you somehow know the gov't product will be inferior....
interesting...how do you know the gov't product will be inferior...? I'm guessing you really don't know but you've bought into this notion and want to push this notion as fact, when the only fact is you don't know if it will be inferior....
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
um....a.....ok....
let me understand...you want to keep something that you know you can't afford without you employer because you somehow know the gov't product will be inferior....
interesting...how do you know the gov't product will be inferior...? I'm guessing you really don't know but you've bought into this notion and want to push this notion as fact, when the only fact is you don't know if it will be inferior....
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
Did you happen to read any of the information I posted about how, under a different system, we would be able to pay for healthcare for everyone for about the same amount we're paying now? And how we can cut UNNECESSARY administrative costs to save lots of money without sacrificing quality of care? It's the SYSTEM that's flawed, that doesn't allow us to afford healthcare for everyone - not a lack of resources.
jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
Why don't you find some actual data on how much of our money is taken for profit and overhead, and how much money is payed into insurance companies versus how much is paid out, and get back to us?
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
Did you happen to read any of the information I posted about how, under a different system, we would be able to pay for healthcare for everyone for about the same amount we're paying now?
are you asking me or telling me? tell me then, why is Medicare 30 Trillion underfunded?
It's the SYSTEM that's flawed, that doesn't allow us to afford healthcare for everyone - not a lack of resources.
I agree the "system" can be improved, but I disagree that their are enough resources for the government to provide healthcare to everyone. at the very least, taxes would have to be raised significantly across the board.
jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
que?
don't you pay monthly premiums towards your insurance, each month, even if you utilize NO services during the year? there's LOADS of profit...otherwise, private insurance companies wouldn't stay in business, nor would they want to. this is why it's 'insurance'....think of any other insurance, homeowners, life insurance, etc.......it all works on the same principle of risk. they all are profitable. they balance out clains with what they charge for the insurance. it IS doable.
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
Why don't you find some actual data on how much of our money is taken for profit and overhead, and how much money is payed into insurance companies versus how much is paid out, and get back to us?
jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
que?
don't you pay monthly premiums towards your insurance, each month, even if you utilize NO services during the year? there's LOADS of profit...otherwise, private insurance companies wouldn't stay in business, nor would they want to. this is why it's 'insurance'....think of any other insurance, homeowners, life insurance, etc.......it all works on the same principle of risk. they all are profitable. they balance out clains with what they charge for the insurance. it IS doable.
can you stop saying que, thats so annoying. is that some type of European thing or something?
yes I pay a premium every month. but often times, one semi major event is far and beyond that amount of premium I've paid throughout the years. for example, I think I pay about $4500 a year premium. I had some doctor visits and a emergency room visit last year, that totally close to $10,000. they lost money on me.
and its not doable. they numbers dont add up. healthcare costs TRILLIONS, insurance companies make billions. it pales in comparison.
can you stop saying que, thats so annoying. is that some type of European thing or something?
yes I pay a premium every month. but often times, one semi major event is far and beyond that amount of premium I've paid throughout the years. for example, I think I pay about $4500 a year premium. I had some doctor visits and a emergency room visit last year, that totally close to $10,000. they lost money on me.
and its not doable. they numbers dont add up. healthcare costs TRILLIONS, insurance companies make billions. it pales in comparison.
no. i'll post what i like. to use your lingo above...who the fuck are you to tell me how to post? :roll:
and for the record, yes..it's spanish.
and yes...oftentimes....probably more often.....you DON'T, and the same holds true for many others. thus the risk/reward of the insurance industry, and also how they can be quite PROFITABLE.
seriously, you keep saying it can't b done....it CAN...and it IS.....in many, many countries across the world. so it certainly can be done HERE too! you don't WANT it here, well enough...but that does NOT mean itcan't be done. obviously, a LOT has to change, the biggest being....cut out the insurance companies. for the benefit of our citizens, hopefully it well happen. what's sad is that while we work towards this greater good, so many do fight tooth and nail against it, afraid of some getting a 'free ride' and the like. meanwhile, the vast majority of people in this country DO 'contribute' do work...no free ride...they just can't afford health insurance, their employer doesn't provide it, etc. and we still all pay in the long run for this disparity, ad most of it...ever rising costs b/c it costs MORE to deal with disease after the fact, and it's far more effective to PREVENT, yet many can't afford those basic services. it's a vicious circle there. change the circle, and you change it all...and the costs. it's doable, and the way to find out is to TRY.
and this board has been extremely wonky for me yesterday and today...very annoying.....keep losing posts.
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
um....a.....ok....
let me understand...you want to keep something that you know you can't afford without you employer because you somehow know the gov't product will be inferior....
interesting...how do you know the gov't product will be inferior...? I'm guessing you really don't know but you've bought into this notion and want to push this notion as fact, when the only fact is you don't know if it will be inferior....
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
no need to be a dick about it...I'm going to ask how do you know because you present things as fact when they haven't happened yet....
you like to predict the future...you're looking at the current system gov't health care system and applying to some future system that you've conjured up in your head...
It's very possible to provide a high quality of care...people who work in the medical and helping fields aren't going to stop doing there jobs because they have a different employer...it's obvious you have never worked in such a job...
you keep saying it's under funded....we can't afford it...blah blah blah...I guess for me, life and health care is more important than money...you're sooo damn worried about something that not fact because it hasn't happened...I mentioned earlier about the high cost of a single shot....and you droned on about this that and the other, but never addressed the fact a fn shot costs 900 bucks...your arguments are based on some system you created in your head...
Comments
profit motivating a system to heal the sick and wounded is criminal. that's the bottom line.
you're always going to get the cheap wheelchairs and sub-par treatment under this system. one way to avoid that is to have universal health care, not a profit based coverage plan, not universal insurance, but universal government run insurance. as long as the government isn't in it to make money-hey they work for us theoretically-there should be no problem.
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
2- Stop saying it is impossible, that is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. If that is the case then you probably think reducing dependence on foreign oil is impossible, or improving the nations public schools is impossible, or going to the moon is impossible..... oh wait...... so many advancements have been made in the last 50-75 years that that to say fixing our health care is impossible is just lazy
cmon people...compromise
Source, please?
(If you've already posted one and I just haven't gotten to it yet, then nevermind.
Part of the solution:
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf
The one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. The same thing does not happen here.
And thats a fact. What good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment.
Crock of shit.
Meanwhile, let's keep funding the never ending war. Who cares about our own citizens?
“Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_of_the_physicians_working_group_for_singlepayer_national_health_insurance.php
Here's some more information (with details/sources at the link below):
• Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.
• Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending. Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.
• Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.
• Business pays less than 20 percent of our nation’s health bill. It is a misnomer that our health system is “privately financed” (60 percent is paid by taxes and the remaining 20 percent is out-of-pocket payments).
• For-profit, investor-owned hospitals, HMOs and nursing homes have higher costs and score lower on most measures of quality than their non-profit counterparts.
• The US could save enough on administrative costs (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system to cover all of the uninsured.
• Competition among investor-owned, for-profit entities has raised costs, reduced quality in the US.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php
Exactly. What we tend to overlook when we talk about rationing or long waits is that, although all systems have finite resources, universal systems "ration"/prioritize according to need, while our system rations according to who has the money to pay. I feel less sorry for Joe Blow who has to wait for a knee replacement when I remember that he was bumped back in line by someone whose life depended on it. So the question we should be asking ourselves isn't "Should Joe Blow have to wait for a knee replacement?," it's "Should Jane Blow be allowed to die so that Joe Blow with more money gets his knee replacement sooner?"
this still all comes down to money. no matter how much bureaucracy you cut down, its still going to go into the Trillions. if we can't afford Meidcare for the elderly, how are we going to afford it for EVERYONE else? I know one helpful method...cut costs. is that the strategy you want when it comes to your healthcare?
I made it up. (I thought it was an obvious exaggeration) but I'm probably close based on the fact the medicare is 30 Trillion underfunded
all you have done is call people stupid and ignorant who don't agree with you. well done.
and yes, I think UHC is impossible and unaffordable. the problem with you people is that you think FREE healthcare actually means its FREE. yet its anything but.
heres a question for you...should illegal aliens qualify for this free healthcare?
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm
Overview/Background
It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.
Yes
1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.
2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.
4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.
5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.
6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.
No
1. 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.
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
10. 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.
11. 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. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
14. 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. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
Where are the people who are willing to give up the concept of private property? People always want the things they can't have and they always want better things I don't see how it is possible to get rid of that. And even if you did find a group of people who were willing to give that up, with no currency and no private property how would you deal with the outside world. A small society can't completly provide for themselves unless you want to live in small huts and eat the same food every day and never travel (gee that sounds like fun). There comes a point where you would need to trade with the outside world and those people take cash.
And I am not sure how you can say the idea of the better meat won't exist since like I said people want better things, and there is always a shortage of the better things, and when you don't have money those better things essentially become currency. And since where on a Pearl Jam board, what do you do if the band comes to town? How do you pay them? How do you determine who gets tickets if the venue they want to play in is too small to fit everyone? Once those tickets are distributed how do you stop people from trading them for other goods and services?
The problem with that is, nobody would be able to afford their current health care package. My package is subsidized by my employer. If the government is giving away "free health care" -- what is the impetus for my company to continue to subsidize? They are cutting costs and not paying a dime anymore. Which means I have to foot the entire bill, which I can't. Which means I have to use the government's crappy health plan.
Which means I'm better off if the government leaves me the hell alone.
I'm all for providing some level of health care to people who can't afford it. I'm not so gung-ho about the government fucking my shit up to do it. This "it's not fair for you to pay for it if other people can't afford it" crap is ridiculous.
for the least they could possibly do
I don't have the answer. If I did, I would run for president, and I would probably win (so long as I could talk good!). But I do know a bad answer when I see one.
For example: I'm no doctor. I don't know the cure for my grandmother's medical condition as outlined in the first post of this thread. But I DO know the answer isn't to shoot her in the face.
Same here. I don't know what the answer to the health-care debate is. I just know the answer isn't a government system under which I pay the same (or more) as I am paying now for lesser, more inefficient care.
for the least they could possibly do
you seem to have some sort of knowledge as to how exactly UHC would be (even though you "don't know the answer")...as if you can predict the future...
if private insurance is the best, why don't seniors ditch there crappy healthcare and get into the private insurance system....?
I believe I mentioned this earlier. Private insurance is far too expensive. The only way people afford it nowadays is that their employers subsidize most of it. Nobody I know can afford to foot the full bill themselves. Retirees don't have employers, so they don't have access to that subsidization.
That's one reason I'm leery of government interference here ... the government starts providing a cheaper (however inferior) product, my employer is going to stop paying for my plan. I will be forced to take the cheaper, inferior product. There is no choice here. There is only the illusion of choice.
All costs being equal, ask any senior if they'd rather have Medicare or the health plan they were on when they retired, and get back to me with your poll results.
for the least they could possibly do
um....a.....ok....
let me understand...you want to keep something that you know you can't afford without you employer because you somehow know the gov't product will be inferior....
interesting...how do you know the gov't product will be inferior...? I'm guessing you really don't know but you've bought into this notion and want to push this notion as fact, when the only fact is you don't know if it will be inferior....
two words. supply and demand. the government doesnt have enough resources to be able to provide high quality care. its simply not possible. dont come back with some stupid like "well how do you know". there are 300 million people in this country. you'd like to provide "free" care to almost all of them and expect the government to afford it? how? they can't afford it for seniors only. like I've said a million times, its 30 Trillion UNDER funded. you know the only way to balance that out? cut costs. the government would then have to start paying for inferior products and services to try and make ends meet.... not to mention raise taxes for everyone.
jlew....seriously....how about ALL the $$$ we all pay into our insured plans now, along with all our employers pay into our insured plans now? cut out the midddle man, absolutely reduce wasteful spending, and yea...i think it can be done. use these funds, ya know...go to healthcare taxes instead of private insurance companies...and i'd bet we'd be there or well on our way. besides which, it is proven time and again that it is FAR *cheaper* to provide preventative service rather than deal with disease. if more had ACCESS to preventative service and thus were able to utilize such, i am sure that too would make a nice dent in overall costs. again, other countries do manage it. doesn't matter that they are smaller populations. it's been shown that we spend MORE on healthcare insurance than other governments spend, per individual.....and yet ALL individuals elsewhere have health coverage whereas a great # of our citizens do not. something is wrong with that picture.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Did you happen to read any of the information I posted about how, under a different system, we would be able to pay for healthcare for everyone for about the same amount we're paying now? And how we can cut UNNECESSARY administrative costs to save lots of money without sacrificing quality of care? It's the SYSTEM that's flawed, that doesn't allow us to afford healthcare for everyone - not a lack of resources.
the money we pay to insurance goes to pay our medical bills. maybe I'm confused but lets say I go to the emergency room and my bill is $8000 and I have a $400 deductible. I pay 400, the insurance company pays the rest. yes of course, they take some for themselves in terms of profit, but whats that, a few billion? we are talking trillions.
Why don't you find some actual data on how much of our money is taken for profit and overhead, and how much money is payed into insurance companies versus how much is paid out, and get back to us?
are you asking me or telling me? tell me then, why is Medicare 30 Trillion underfunded?
you tell me
I agree the "system" can be improved, but I disagree that their are enough resources for the government to provide healthcare to everyone. at the very least, taxes would have to be raised significantly across the board.
que?
don't you pay monthly premiums towards your insurance, each month, even if you utilize NO services during the year? there's LOADS of profit...otherwise, private insurance companies wouldn't stay in business, nor would they want to. this is why it's 'insurance'....think of any other insurance, homeowners, life insurance, etc.......it all works on the same principle of risk. they all are profitable. they balance out clains with what they charge for the insurance. it IS doable.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
who the fuck are you? you have google too use it
can you stop saying que, thats so annoying. is that some type of European thing or something?
yes I pay a premium every month. but often times, one semi major event is far and beyond that amount of premium I've paid throughout the years. for example, I think I pay about $4500 a year premium. I had some doctor visits and a emergency room visit last year, that totally close to $10,000. they lost money on me.
and its not doable. they numbers dont add up. healthcare costs TRILLIONS, insurance companies make billions. it pales in comparison.
no. i'll post what i like. to use your lingo above...who the fuck are you to tell me how to post? :roll:
and for the record, yes..it's spanish.
and yes...oftentimes....probably more often.....you DON'T, and the same holds true for many others. thus the risk/reward of the insurance industry, and also how they can be quite PROFITABLE.
seriously, you keep saying it can't b done....it CAN...and it IS.....in many, many countries across the world. so it certainly can be done HERE too! you don't WANT it here, well enough...but that does NOT mean itcan't be done. obviously, a LOT has to change, the biggest being....cut out the insurance companies. for the benefit of our citizens, hopefully it well happen. what's sad is that while we work towards this greater good, so many do fight tooth and nail against it, afraid of some getting a 'free ride' and the like. meanwhile, the vast majority of people in this country DO 'contribute' do work...no free ride...they just can't afford health insurance, their employer doesn't provide it, etc. and we still all pay in the long run for this disparity, ad most of it...ever rising costs b/c it costs MORE to deal with disease after the fact, and it's far more effective to PREVENT, yet many can't afford those basic services. it's a vicious circle there. change the circle, and you change it all...and the costs. it's doable, and the way to find out is to TRY.
and this board has been extremely wonky for me yesterday and today...very annoying.....keep losing posts.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
no need to be a dick about it...I'm going to ask how do you know because you present things as fact when they haven't happened yet....
you like to predict the future...you're looking at the current system gov't health care system and applying to some future system that you've conjured up in your head...
It's very possible to provide a high quality of care...people who work in the medical and helping fields aren't going to stop doing there jobs because they have a different employer...it's obvious you have never worked in such a job...
you keep saying it's under funded....we can't afford it...blah blah blah...I guess for me, life and health care is more important than money...you're sooo damn worried about something that not fact because it hasn't happened...I mentioned earlier about the high cost of a single shot....and you droned on about this that and the other, but never addressed the fact a fn shot costs 900 bucks...your arguments are based on some system you created in your head...