Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
there are ways to pay for UHC without jacking up taxes. Ive explained how to get $1.5 trillion, the easy way. i'm sure they could come up with plenty more.
and what kind of argument is that anyway.,
you don't mind that your tax dollars are being used to kill children in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when it comes to saving lives? fuck that huh? right.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
there are ways to pay for UHC without jacking up taxes. Ive explained how to get $1.5 trillion, the easy way. i'm sure they could come up with plenty more.
and what kind of argument is that anyway.,
you don't mind that your tax dollars are being used to kill children in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when it comes to saving lives? fuck that huh? right.
used to kill, not to heal.
I dont recall seeing your post, what "easy" way can we get 1.5 trillion. and yes, we all mind that our tax dollars are used for war. what we dont mind is that they are used for defense. that is one of the basic jobs of the government. I absolutely think we need to cut back military spending, but I'm not about to dissolve the military so we have have UHC
um, no you dont. thanks for asking though. I only ask your age because you act like a little kid. someone with not much life experience. like some college kid who thinks he has all the answers but really has no fucking clue. I was being really generous when I said u might be 20 or 21. you post like you are about 15 or 16...but I'm just assuming you might be at least college age.
come on, now...I know you have a crush on me...
seriously, Jlew...I'm just having a bit of fun with you...no need to be so serious all the time...you have your views and I have mine....you do tend to come off with a holier-than-thou sort of attitude at times...that's cool with me...I just don't like being told how to respond...and if I want to ask a question after being asked a question, I'm going to do so...
you won't have to deal with me for at week or two as my sweet ass will be sitting on the beach all next week, as I will be staying in an Oceanfront House with the family, and then heading to Asheville for a Phish show...
remember: hugs and drugs...or was that hugs not drugs...either way, I guess...
I dont recall seeing your post, what "easy" way can we get 1.5 trillion. and yes, we all mind that our tax dollars are used for war. what we dont mind is that they are used for defense. that is one of the basic jobs of the government. I absolutely think we need to cut back military spending, but I'm not about to dissolve the military so we have have UHC
Reagan shifted $1 trillion during his presidency, from social spending to the private sector. It was largely responsible for silicon valley and the tech boom....but i would trade that for health care in a second.
I'm not suggesting we end the military budget, its just not necessary to spend as much as Europe, China, Russia, and Israel and the next 23 countries combined. We could scale it back considerably and still be in a very powerful position world wide.
I don't know the numbers, but this corporate welfare is bullshit. They get grants to invent products. They get grants to test products. they get grants to develop products. they get grants to produce products. and then we buy those products with US tax dollars. No risk on their part, no cost on their part, but they pocket all the profit. its the fundamentals of the military industrial complex. that system needs to go.
That's a lot of money right there, no new taxes. Like Bush one said, when he lied, only this time its true.
Or they could treat it like they did with the war in Iraq. They pulled $1 trillion out of nowhere to pay for the war. My guess is they could come up with something similar for UHC if they were motivated enough.
I dont recall seeing your post, what "easy" way can we get 1.5 trillion. and yes, we all mind that our tax dollars are used for war. what we dont mind is that they are used for defense. that is one of the basic jobs of the government. I absolutely think we need to cut back military spending, but I'm not about to dissolve the military so we have have UHC
Reagan shifted $1 trillion during his presidency, from social spending to the private sector. It was largely responsible for silicon valley and the tech boom....but i would trade that for health care in a second.
I'm not suggesting we end the military budget, its just not necessary to spend as much as Europe, China, Russia, and Israel and the next 23 countries combined. We could scale it back considerably and still be in a very powerful position world wide.
I don't know the numbers, but this corporate welfare is bullshit. They get grants to invent products. They get grants to test products. they get grants to develop products. they get grants to produce products. and then we buy those products with US tax dollars. No risk on their part, no cost on their part, but they pocket all the profit. its the fundamentals of the military industrial complex. that system needs to go.
That's a lot of money right there, no new taxes. Like Bush one said, when he lied, only this time its true.
I agree for the most part. things can change and budgets can be moved around. and we can and should cut down spending in not only the military, but across the board.
Or they could treat it like they did with the war in Iraq. They pulled $1 trillion out of nowhere to pay for the war. My guess is they could come up with something similar for UHC if they were motivated enough.
its not out of nowhere, we borrowed it and printed more money. this is going to have very negative consequences going forward. secondly, these wars will be a one time expense..in the sense that, they will end.
UHC is not something then will end once started....and will cost FAR more then $1 or $2 trillion.
not to beat a dead horse, tho i suspect we killed and buried em at least 10 pages back....;)
but HOW we would fund UHC has been said:
yes, i am oversimplifying b/c of course there is more to it...but really, here we go:
firstly, there are MANY w/o insurance simply b/c they cannot afford it ALL on their own. they could afford some of it, like most of us who contribute to an employer's plan while the employer picks up the rest of the tab....but not all employers offer health insurance. so then, with UHC, these people can afford, and will contribute to healthcare tax. many employers (tho not all, obviously some small businesses will need exemptions) but overall, most employers who currently do not offer health insurance to the bulk of their employees.....now they will make a contribution towards UHC thru tax. yes, it will cut into their profits, but yes...i believe they should all contribute to the health of americans since they are profiting from americans, making their profits - which they still will make - from being here. then there's the vast rest of us, who already pay in to health insurance, as do our employers.....so let's start adding:
people currently uncovered but employed, now will contribute to healthcare = more $$$ for UHC
(most) employers who currently don't offer coverage to all employees, now will contribute towards healthcare = more $$$ for UHC
all employees currently paying towards health insurance = same contribution towards UHC
employers currently paying towards health insurance for their employees = same contribution towards UHC
now, add in a few other BIG things:
NO MORE PROFIT.....probably save billions a year....as healthcare is simply for the health of citizens, not for stockholders to earn dividends = more $$$ towards UHC
overall streamlining of health care = lower costs, overall = more $$$ for UHC
more people receiving PREVENTATIVE healthcare which is proven to be far most cost effective, means less costly disease, less $$$ spent = more $$$ for UHC
as to the 'argument' that without profit there is no innovation....i disagree. firstly, a VAST amount of current medical research, both here and abroad, is done by the GOVERNMENT. government sponsored research. a HUGE amount of grants are offered, annually. so yea....we already pay for a lot of it. secondly, the ACTUAL innovators, you know...the doctors and scientists who do the RESEARCH......still getting paid, so where do they lose their motivation? whether the govt pays em or some big corp, they're still going to be innovative and research. the only one who 'loses' is the big corp making a profit for their stockholders.
so again, none of this automatically points to higher costs...if anything, lesser......and it certainly does not point to lesser care for all. we ALREADY pay in towards the healthcare of others to some degree. yes, it is a flawed system, but it is also the old model, and working within, overall, a for profit model. if we CHANGE the model, develop a NEw model.....it can be done.
we can fund it VERY much the same we fund our healthcare now....and be able to 'afford' to get all those currently uninsured covered too by, no more profit, more now can manage to pay in, preventative care being less costly, and overall streamlining/cutting the fat so to speak of private care. (and i know about medicaide's disaster, but again, this would NOT be like medicaide - broader base for funds, and also, not operating a not for profit industry within a for profit industry)
obviously...just 'ideas'.....just saying, it is doable to come up with the funding.....
also have covered it does not necessarily mean less quality care, really no reason for it.
tho i agree there are simply people who are AGAINST the idea, as slightofjeff mentioned earlier. while i find it amazing any one would not want care, or somehow feels it's a greater need to have 'choice' as in how much they get to pay in, who pays in, etc....obviously, there are people who do. fair enough. however, not liking the idea is not equal to it not being very possible to do, and to do well...and i personally think the 'greater good' of EACh and every one of us having healthcare for life, at all stages of life, no matter what....is worth these few 'concessions'.....tho i realize, many disagree.
btw - i do fully realize, just b/c we CAN fund it, and even if we CAN maintain quality of care...doesn't mean we actually WILL. obviously, the insurance industry will fight tooth and nail b/c this would mean their demise, and i am sure while many americans DO want universal care, there are others who do not...and we as a nation always fight tax, so yea......there definitely are OBSTACLES, and biggies......i am not toally delusional. just that, we can do it if we want to.....but you bet, a long hard road, and figuring out if we, as nation, REALLY want to. i hope we do.
um, no you dont. thanks for asking though. I only ask your age because you act like a little kid. someone with not much life experience. like some college kid who thinks he has all the answers but really has no fucking clue. I was being really generous when I said u might be 20 or 21. you post like you are about 15 or 16...but I'm just assuming you might be at least college age.
come on, now...I know you have a crush on me...
seriously, Jlew...I'm just having a bit of fun with you...no need to be so serious all the time...you have your views and I have mine....you do tend to come off with a holier-than-thou sort of attitude at times...that's cool with me...I just don't like being told how to respond...and if I want to ask a question after being asked a question, I'm going to do so...
you won't have to deal with me for at week or two as my sweet ass will be sitting on the beach all next week, as I will be staying in an Oceanfront House with the family, and then heading to Asheville for a Phish show...
remember: hugs and drugs...or was that hugs not drugs...either way, I guess...
btw - i do fully realize, just b/c we CAN fund it, and even if we CAN maintain quality of care...doesn't mean we actually WILL. obviously, the insurance industry will fight tooth and nail b/c this would mean their demise, and i am sure while many americans DO want universal care, there are others who do not...and we as a nation always fight tax, so yea......there definitely are OBSTACLES, and biggies......i am not toally delusional. just that, we can do it if we want to.....but you bet, a long hard road, and figuring out if we, as nation, REALLY want to. i hope we do.
essentially I want high quality care for all. while I dont believe UHC is the answer, I do believe we can take smaller steps to maybe get there one day. for example, Universal healthcare for the elderly, children, unemployed, veterans, and I'm sure there are some special circumstances I'm leaving out.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
But if you are brought into an emergerncy room, even in the US from what I understand, the doctors have to treat you and don't have the choice to kick you out if you can't pay. So essentially if you choose to have no insurance, if you are brought in to a hospital and either die before paying, or rack up a bill you can't pay before being stable enough to leave you are basically depending on everyone else to pay for your medical care.
Most people don't choose to have no insurance
And yes Emergency rooms are suppose to stabilize you if you come in with a life threatening injury regardless of ability. But do they always no. And define stabilize..... :?
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Should be common sense however many do not have the ability to comprehend
talk about ignorance. wow. "for profit" doesnt mean people get fucked. profit is an excellent motivator...it brings innovation..it brings much needed technological advances. status quo socialism does not. like slight said, it beings everyone down to an equal level. which isn't an improvement. its a step backwards.
Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.
OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.
In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.
But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.
But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down
I'm not sure how you can argue profit ISN'T a motivator. But have fun trying ...
profit is a motivator, in that most of work to get paid, we make money from our services but that is not what was originally discussed, he said profit leads to innovations which is obviously not true as seen by the current "economic crises"
I wanted to share this opinion piece I stumbled upon. He makes a lot of sense and some pretty solid points, imo.
The Supposed Difficulties of Converting to Single-Payer
By Joel A. Harrison
I’ll leave the political difficulties aside, e.g. lobbyist, bought and paid for politicians. Let's just go down the list:
1. We already have FICA and Medicare Taxes, so employers and individuals will just continue paying them, except the Medicare tax will be called the Single-Payer Tax and the percentage of income up to a cap will be increased. Compare this with employers having to negotiate each year with insurance companies, paying separately to them, and each year having to renegotiate, or change policies as rates spiral up. Gee, I think the former a no-brainer.
2. Doctors and hospitals already submit bills to Medicare and to umpteen additional insurance companies, each with numerous different policies, e.g. with different deductibles and copays. So with Single-Payer, they continue to submit; but just to Medicare, now the Single-Payer. This may be national, regional, or even by State; but now they will submit to just one entity. Gee, I think this also a no-brainer.
3. Doctors and hospitals every year have to negotiate contracts with a myriad of different insurers. With single-payer, for instance, each specialty medical society will negotiate with one entity. The negotiations will probably be based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (see article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-B ... alue_Scale). Basically, researchers looked at all medical diagnoses and procedures and based on things like training needed, level of skill, time taken, etc. created a scale. One then decides on how much each point on the scale is worth and adjust it for cost of living differences. Just to simply, imagine an office visit is given 1 point and an appendectomy 24. One could negotiate $50 per point so an office visit would get $50 and the surgeon performing an appendectomy $1200. One can then add an additional 5% for New York City doctors because of cost of living. This isn’t the real points; but just to give an idea. Medicare and many insurance companies already use this system. So, once a year, instead of a myriad of negotiations, the medical societies, perhaps regionally, or state-wise, will negotiate with the single-payer board. Gee, once more I think this a no-brainer.
4. An electronic database for patient records will need to be developed. The VA already has an excellent one in the public domain which could be used as a starting point. A panel could be created by our National Academy of Science to bring the best experts together to develop a user friendly version with appropriate safeguards. Then all doctors’ offices should be given computers and appropriate training, paying the doctors for their time. While this will cost money upfront, it will save tons down the line.
5. I am not an expert; but understand enough about databases, having created a few complex ones in Access, to know that whether one contains 1,000, 100,000, etc., once the fields are created, the data entry for additional records is not a problem. Modifications to the Medicare database can be made or see above point # 4 - Medicare will need to hire more data entry personnel and train them; but there will be plenty available who previously worked for the for-profit insurance companies.
6. Many current employees of the for-profit insurance companies and in the billing offices of doctors and hospitals have medical training or, at least college degrees. Those with medical training will be get jobs using them with patients. Others will need training. Well, after World War II we had the GI Bill which in many ways created our middle class and gave an enormous boost to our economy. If we could offer training, education, and living allowances to 10 million returning veterans, I’m sure we can manage with a half million or fewer who lost their jobs working in the conversion to single-payer. Remember that the GI Bill applied at a time when our national debt because of the war was enormous; but the debt added by the GI Bill shrunk as GDP grew because of it. Also keep in mind that most health insurance companies cover more than health insurance and so many of their personnel will remain. The others can be retrained for jobs that actually benefit our society rather than administrative waste that actually harms us by creating a fragmented complex counterproductive system. Some will get training as nurses, lvns, other auxiliary medical personnel, teachers, social workers, school counselors, etc. We really need more home health care nursing personnel. Many who end up in a nursing home can remain at home with the right support network. This is not only better for the patient; but cheaper. Through Medicaid we already pay for most nursing homes, under single-payer we will cover home health care, saving money and allowing many to retain their dignity and independence.
7. All citizens and legal residents will be issued a card. In 1966 we began enrolling seniors in Medicare, 10s of millions of them. It took a couple of years altogether; but it wasn’t that difficult. With single-payer people will fill out a simple form and mail it in or, perhaps, we could just automatically mail the single-payer card to everyone registered with Social Security and just need to register children and newborns. I’m sure an efficient method can be developed. Will it guarantee we get every last person, probably not, and will it guarantee we won’t include some illegals, probably not; but neither does our current fragmented system cover everyone, in fact, we know it doesn’t with almost 100 million either un- or underinsured, and some illegals manage to get medical care. Single-payer will eventually cover everyone, and it will be easier to police for fraud.
Basically, the transition to a single-payer system will be from complexity to simplicity. Will it go smoothly? Probably not; but compared to what? Our current anything but smoothly functioning system. With proper planning it is doable. Not only will it save money, but actually simplify almost everything. Patients will choose their own doctors or hospitals. Scientific studies will be conducted to evaluate what really works, what works best, and what doesn’t work. It is currently estimated that over 1/3 of all medical interventions either are worthless or actually do harm.
A single-payer database will actually facilitate improvements in care. Just as an example, several years ago one doctor had a patient with a very rare disorder, something he had not seen before. He just happened to mention this at a table with other colleagues and one other had recently seen the same disorder, eventually discovering several more through e-mails. They all discovered they had given their patients the same drug and reported it to the FDA. It was fortunate that the first doctor had mentioned it in the vicinity of another who also had recently seen the rare disorder because it was rare. With a single-payer database, teams will run programs to screen for rare disorders and will be able much more quickly to investigate them. Clinical trials on drugs may use several thousand patients. If severe side-effects only occur with 1 in 100,000, they will often not discover them until much later through after marketing surveillance. Using the database they can compare various surgical and medical interventions for a particular diagnosis, leading to further research. It will be easier to track errors. And patient records will be transportable. After Katrina, VA patients from New Orleans could go to any VA hospital with their complete medical records available. No way with a myriad of private insurers.
Given everything that is wrong with our current system including:
1. Costly as percentage of GDP, taking monies that could be used for other important things such as schools, infrastructure, research and development;
2. Difficulties in obtaining comprehensive, coordinated, continuity of care;
3. Un- and underinsured, delaying care until needing more costly care which is often too late, also clogging unnecessarily our emergency rooms;
4. Doctors wasting up to 2 hours per day arguing with insurance companies;
5. Those insured facing delays and denials, bankruptcy, and even loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, including as result of long term illness;
6. Harming our international competitiveness, e.g. American manufactured car needs to add about $1600 to price because of health costs compared with Canada, France, etc.;
7. Forcing our companies to devote time and energy getting health care for their employees whereas they should be concentrating on their products and/or services;
8. Job lock where people either stay at a job or seek jobs because of health care rather than where their skills and talents lay, thus negatively affecting productivity; and
9. Higher rate of medical errors than many other countries, lower life-expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher number of premature deaths and disabilities for treatable medical conditions.
Many other modern industrialized nations have managed to develop some form of universal non-profit health care system with most offering comprehensive cost-effective quality care, often with far less wait than here, patient choice of doctors and hospitals, and at a lower cost.
Gradualism, given all of the above, is just a code word for keeping the unearned, disruptive, counterproductive profits of a dysfunctional fragmented for-profit health care industry that never should have been allowed to come into being in the first place (a recent phenomenon even in the U.S. basically starting in the 1980s).
Anyone supporting gradualism has either not really studied the problems we face (just as one example look at Barlett and Steele’s book, “Critical Condition), and all the research and studies on single-payer and international comparisons (many can be found on Physicians for a National Health Programs website at www.pnhp.org. Or is a shill for the for-profit health care industry.
Don't fall for insurance industry PR or compromised "reform" that keeps insurance middlemen at the table. Support Single Payer!
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, lives in San Diego, where he does consulting in epidemiology and research design. He has worked in the areas of preventive medicine, infectious diseases, medical outcomes research, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. He has lived and studied in both Canada and Sweden.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
I wanted to share this opinion piece I stumbled upon. He makes a lot of sense and some pretty solid points, imo.
The Supposed Difficulties of Converting to Single-Payer
By Joel A. Harrison
I’ll leave the political difficulties aside, e.g. lobbyist, bought and paid for politicians. Let's just go down the list:
1. We already have FICA and Medicare Taxes, so employers and individuals will just continue paying them, except the Medicare tax will be called the Single-Payer Tax and the percentage of income up to a cap will be increased. Compare this with employers having to negotiate each year with insurance companies, paying separately to them, and each year having to renegotiate, or change policies as rates spiral up. Gee, I think the former a no-brainer.
2. Doctors and hospitals already submit bills to Medicare and to umpteen additional insurance companies, each with numerous different policies, e.g. with different deductibles and copays. So with Single-Payer, they continue to submit; but just to Medicare, now the Single-Payer. This may be national, regional, or even by State; but now they will submit to just one entity. Gee, I think this also a no-brainer.
3. Doctors and hospitals every year have to negotiate contracts with a myriad of different insurers. With single-payer, for instance, each specialty medical society will negotiate with one entity. The negotiations will probably be based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (see article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-B ... alue_Scale). Basically, researchers looked at all medical diagnoses and procedures and based on things like training needed, level of skill, time taken, etc. created a scale. One then decides on how much each point on the scale is worth and adjust it for cost of living differences. Just to simply, imagine an office visit is given 1 point and an appendectomy 24. One could negotiate $50 per point so an office visit would get $50 and the surgeon performing an appendectomy $1200. One can then add an additional 5% for New York City doctors because of cost of living. This isn’t the real points; but just to give an idea. Medicare and many insurance companies already use this system. So, once a year, instead of a myriad of negotiations, the medical societies, perhaps regionally, or state-wise, will negotiate with the single-payer board. Gee, once more I think this a no-brainer.
4. An electronic database for patient records will need to be developed. The VA already has an excellent one in the public domain which could be used as a starting point. A panel could be created by our National Academy of Science to bring the best experts together to develop a user friendly version with appropriate safeguards. Then all doctors’ offices should be given computers and appropriate training, paying the doctors for their time. While this will cost money upfront, it will save tons down the line.
5. I am not an expert; but understand enough about databases, having created a few complex ones in Access, to know that whether one contains 1,000, 100,000, etc., once the fields are created, the data entry for additional records is not a problem. Modifications to the Medicare database can be made or see above point # 4 - Medicare will need to hire more data entry personnel and train them; but there will be plenty available who previously worked for the for-profit insurance companies.
6. Many current employees of the for-profit insurance companies and in the billing offices of doctors and hospitals have medical training or, at least college degrees. Those with medical training will be get jobs using them with patients. Others will need training. Well, after World War II we had the GI Bill which in many ways created our middle class and gave an enormous boost to our economy. If we could offer training, education, and living allowances to 10 million returning veterans, I’m sure we can manage with a half million or fewer who lost their jobs working in the conversion to single-payer. Remember that the GI Bill applied at a time when our national debt because of the war was enormous; but the debt added by the GI Bill shrunk as GDP grew because of it. Also keep in mind that most health insurance companies cover more than health insurance and so many of their personnel will remain. The others can be retrained for jobs that actually benefit our society rather than administrative waste that actually harms us by creating a fragmented complex counterproductive system. Some will get training as nurses, lvns, other auxiliary medical personnel, teachers, social workers, school counselors, etc. We really need more home health care nursing personnel. Many who end up in a nursing home can remain at home with the right support network. This is not only better for the patient; but cheaper. Through Medicaid we already pay for most nursing homes, under single-payer we will cover home health care, saving money and allowing many to retain their dignity and independence.
7. All citizens and legal residents will be issued a card. In 1966 we began enrolling seniors in Medicare, 10s of millions of them. It took a couple of years altogether; but it wasn’t that difficult. With single-payer people will fill out a simple form and mail it in or, perhaps, we could just automatically mail the single-payer card to everyone registered with Social Security and just need to register children and newborns. I’m sure an efficient method can be developed. Will it guarantee we get every last person, probably not, and will it guarantee we won’t include some illegals, probably not; but neither does our current fragmented system cover everyone, in fact, we know it doesn’t with almost 100 million either un- or underinsured, and some illegals manage to get medical care. Single-payer will eventually cover everyone, and it will be easier to police for fraud.
Basically, the transition to a single-payer system will be from complexity to simplicity. Will it go smoothly? Probably not; but compared to what? Our current anything but smoothly functioning system. With proper planning it is doable. Not only will it save money, but actually simplify almost everything. Patients will choose their own doctors or hospitals. Scientific studies will be conducted to evaluate what really works, what works best, and what doesn’t work. It is currently estimated that over 1/3 of all medical interventions either are worthless or actually do harm.
A single-payer database will actually facilitate improvements in care. Just as an example, several years ago one doctor had a patient with a very rare disorder, something he had not seen before. He just happened to mention this at a table with other colleagues and one other had recently seen the same disorder, eventually discovering several more through e-mails. They all discovered they had given their patients the same drug and reported it to the FDA. It was fortunate that the first doctor had mentioned it in the vicinity of another who also had recently seen the rare disorder because it was rare. With a single-payer database, teams will run programs to screen for rare disorders and will be able much more quickly to investigate them. Clinical trials on drugs may use several thousand patients. If severe side-effects only occur with 1 in 100,000, they will often not discover them until much later through after marketing surveillance. Using the database they can compare various surgical and medical interventions for a particular diagnosis, leading to further research. It will be easier to track errors. And patient records will be transportable. After Katrina, VA patients from New Orleans could go to any VA hospital with their complete medical records available. No way with a myriad of private insurers.
Given everything that is wrong with our current system including:
1. Costly as percentage of GDP, taking monies that could be used for other important things such as schools, infrastructure, research and development;
2. Difficulties in obtaining comprehensive, coordinated, continuity of care;
3. Un- and underinsured, delaying care until needing more costly care which is often too late, also clogging unnecessarily our emergency rooms;
4. Doctors wasting up to 2 hours per day arguing with insurance companies;
5. Those insured facing delays and denials, bankruptcy, and even loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, including as result of long term illness;
6. Harming our international competitiveness, e.g. American manufactured car needs to add about $1600 to price because of health costs compared with Canada, France, etc.;
7. Forcing our companies to devote time and energy getting health care for their employees whereas they should be concentrating on their products and/or services;
8. Job lock where people either stay at a job or seek jobs because of health care rather than where their skills and talents lay, thus negatively affecting productivity; and
9. Higher rate of medical errors than many other countries, lower life-expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher number of premature deaths and disabilities for treatable medical conditions.
Many other modern industrialized nations have managed to develop some form of universal non-profit health care system with most offering comprehensive cost-effective quality care, often with far less wait than here, patient choice of doctors and hospitals, and at a lower cost.
Gradualism, given all of the above, is just a code word for keeping the unearned, disruptive, counterproductive profits of a dysfunctional fragmented for-profit health care industry that never should have been allowed to come into being in the first place (a recent phenomenon even in the U.S. basically starting in the 1980s).
Anyone supporting gradualism has either not really studied the problems we face (just as one example look at Barlett and Steele’s book, “Critical Condition), and all the research and studies on single-payer and international comparisons (many can be found on Physicians for a National Health Programs website at http://www.pnhp.org. Or is a shill for the for-profit health care industry.
Don't fall for insurance industry PR or compromised "reform" that keeps insurance middlemen at the table. Support Single Payer!
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, lives in San Diego, where he does consulting in epidemiology and research design. He has worked in the areas of preventive medicine, infectious diseases, medical outcomes research, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. He has lived and studied in both Canada and Sweden.
good read. makes sense.
i liked "Basically, the transition to a single-payer system will be from complexity to simplicity."
the entire article suggested that. turn this beast of a health care system into something a little more manageable. made sense to me.
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
yes it does. how the fuck is there a stalemate in this country? stalemate in what? I'm a photographer by hobby...seems like every few months a new, more expensive, camera is released from Nikon amd Canon. there are new features, more megapixels, etc. these innovations are driven by profit.
same goes for the drug companies. they are constantly researching and developing new drugs to make money.
throw socialism into the mix and that stops.
and how is trying to create the next big social networking site NOT innovation? thousands of young web developers, right now, are brainstorming new and INNOVATIVE ways for you and I to socially network with family and friends.
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
We were discussing this last night. Profit can, in fact, stifle innovation. The reason we have been unable to innovate and find better energy policies is because we have been using the same technology for power for over 100 years. Why? Because the profits earned by old energy interests are being used to stifle any and all innovation (and competition) to ensure that their profits remain up. The market is not open and free, it is very closed. There is no money in medical innovation, the profit is all being reaped by insurance companies that will not allow any system that streamlines the process, protects uninsured people, or gives anyone the power to deal with doctors without them taking their cut as a middle man. Profit motive has stifled growth and innovation in health care, not promoted it.
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
We were discussing this last night. Profit can, in fact, stifle innovation. The reason we have been unable to innovate and find better energy policies is because we have been using the same technology for power for over 100 years. Why? Because the profits earned by old energy interests are being used to stifle any and all innovation (and competition) to ensure that their profits remain up. The market is not open and free, it is very closed. There is no money in medical innovation, the profit is all being reaped by insurance companies that will not allow any system that streamlines the process, protects uninsured people, or gives anyone the power to deal with doctors without them taking their cut as a middle man. Profit motive has stifled growth and innovation in health care, not promoted it.
who is "we"? the council of kids who just graduated law school who think they are important? I say bullshit. the are plenty of healthcare innovations going on...and the major thing driving that is profit. I dont see the life expectancy rate going down, do you? and it damn well should be considered how fat and lazy our country has become.
with oil and new energy technology, you might have a point, but not healthcare. but even with energy, I think there is PLENTY of innovations going on such as nanotechnology, solar, and wind. we just haven't figured it out yet.
who is "we"? the council of kids who just graduated law school who think they are important? I say bullshit. the are plenty of healthcare innovations going on...and the major thing driving that is profit. I dont see the life expectancy rate going down, do you? and it damn well should be considered how fat and lazy our country has become.
with oil and new energy technology, you might have a point, but not healthcare. but even with energy, I think there is PLENTY of innovations going on such as nanotechnology, solar, and wind. we just haven't figured it out yet.
This was just the family sitting around talking about shit. My brother, a fellow law school grad, and my parents, both highly educated professionals that have had nightmares for years about their health care plans changing every year, shifting coverage, moving us to a different family practice every 2 years or so, etc. There is no consumer "choice" in this current system and if you think there is then I'M the one saying bullshit.
The energy innovations we do have are coming from GOVERNMENT funded universities, not GM, Ford, Exxon, etc. Yes, drug companies are doing lots of drug research, but 1) they're doing it by giving $ to universities and 2) they're still going to be able to turn a decent profit on a good drug, they just won't be able to bankrupt their customers to do it. They operate like the mafia now, or a heroin dealer... sky's the limit for a drug they know someone will DIE without. By your logic, our utilities companies should have gone out of business long ago. But they continue to operate profitably despite heavy government regulations. Or I can refer again to our public system for judges and attorneys for the destitute... that doesn't stop a lively and significant private legal sector with a pretty sizable profit. And I don't anyone arguing that profit motive has been good for our legal system. Because it has led to the exact problems we face with health care... willful self-serving complexity. You make the system so impossible for an individual to negotiate it alone and it ensures that your services (lawyers, health insurance agents) are absolutely necessary for every breath you draw and thus guarantee a lifetime of exorbitant income.
I dont see the life expectancy rate going down, do you?
Actually, it is. This is the first generation that's expected to not live as long as our parents.
where did you gather such information? and what are the reasons giving for that?
The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005; 352:1138-1145. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., Douglas J. Passaro, M.D., Ronald C. Hershow, M.D., Jennifer Layden, M.P.H., Bruce A. Carnes, Ph.D., Jacob Brody, M.D., Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Robert N. Butler, M.D., David B. Allison, Ph.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D.
Also, I learned about it in my public health classes. It's attributed to obesity. Life expectancy is also lower for Americans who are poor, which says a lot about how our current system is failing us.
The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005; 352:1138-1145. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., Douglas J. Passaro, M.D., Ronald C. Hershow, M.D., Jennifer Layden, M.P.H., Bruce A. Carnes, Ph.D., Jacob Brody, M.D., Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Robert N. Butler, M.D., David B. Allison, Ph.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D.
Also, I learned about it in my public health classes. It's attributed to obesity.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
bottom line, money and profits do spur on innovations. healthcare innovations are happening and will continue under a for profit system. it certainly could under a government run program as well. but that just means higher taxes to pay for it.
Life expectancy is also lower for Americans who are poor, which says a lot about how our current system is failing us.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
I know the first report is just a projection. It can't be anything more than that until this generation is old enough to start dying off.
That's just talking about the American life expectancy rate overall though. The 2nd article shows how life expectancy already has declined for particular populations, such as the poor.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
The problem with the government providing healthcare only for the poor is that socio-economic status is a continuum - you're not either poor or rich; there's a whole middle-class out there that is screwed.
INCOME is the #1 predictor of health in this country - not lifestyle choices, genetics, etc. I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs and is a direct result of our for-profit system.
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
I know the first report is just a projection. It can't be anything more than that until this generation is old enough to start dying off.
That's just talking about the American life expectancy rate overall though. The 2nd article shows how life expectancy already has declined for particular populations, such as the poor.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
The problem with the government providing healthcare only for the poor is that socio-economic status is a continuum - you're not either poor or rich; there's a whole middle-class out there that is screwed.
INCOME is the #1 predictor of health in this country - not lifestyle choices, genetics, etc. I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs and is a direct result of our for-profit system.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.
Comments
there are ways to pay for UHC without jacking up taxes. Ive explained how to get $1.5 trillion, the easy way. i'm sure they could come up with plenty more.
and what kind of argument is that anyway.,
you don't mind that your tax dollars are being used to kill children in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when it comes to saving lives? fuck that huh? right.
used to kill, not to heal.
I dont recall seeing your post, what "easy" way can we get 1.5 trillion. and yes, we all mind that our tax dollars are used for war. what we dont mind is that they are used for defense. that is one of the basic jobs of the government. I absolutely think we need to cut back military spending, but I'm not about to dissolve the military so we have have UHC
come on, now...I know you have a crush on me...
seriously, Jlew...I'm just having a bit of fun with you...no need to be so serious all the time...you have your views and I have mine....you do tend to come off with a holier-than-thou sort of attitude at times...that's cool with me...I just don't like being told how to respond...and if I want to ask a question after being asked a question, I'm going to do so...
you won't have to deal with me for at week or two as my sweet ass will be sitting on the beach all next week, as I will be staying in an Oceanfront House with the family, and then heading to Asheville for a Phish show...
remember: hugs and drugs...or was that hugs not drugs...either way, I guess...
Reagan shifted $1 trillion during his presidency, from social spending to the private sector. It was largely responsible for silicon valley and the tech boom....but i would trade that for health care in a second.
I'm not suggesting we end the military budget, its just not necessary to spend as much as Europe, China, Russia, and Israel and the next 23 countries combined. We could scale it back considerably and still be in a very powerful position world wide.
I don't know the numbers, but this corporate welfare is bullshit. They get grants to invent products. They get grants to test products. they get grants to develop products. they get grants to produce products. and then we buy those products with US tax dollars. No risk on their part, no cost on their part, but they pocket all the profit. its the fundamentals of the military industrial complex. that system needs to go.
That's a lot of money right there, no new taxes. Like Bush one said, when he lied, only this time its true.
Or they could treat it like they did with the war in Iraq. They pulled $1 trillion out of nowhere to pay for the war. My guess is they could come up with something similar for UHC if they were motivated enough.
I agree for the most part. things can change and budgets can be moved around. and we can and should cut down spending in not only the military, but across the board.
its not out of nowhere, we borrowed it and printed more money. this is going to have very negative consequences going forward. secondly, these wars will be a one time expense..in the sense that, they will end.
UHC is not something then will end once started....and will cost FAR more then $1 or $2 trillion.
but HOW we would fund UHC has been said:
we can fund it VERY much the same we fund our healthcare now....and be able to 'afford' to get all those currently uninsured covered too by, no more profit, more now can manage to pay in, preventative care being less costly, and overall streamlining/cutting the fat so to speak of private care. (and i know about medicaide's disaster, but again, this would NOT be like medicaide - broader base for funds, and also, not operating a not for profit industry within a for profit industry)
obviously...just 'ideas'.....just saying, it is doable to come up with the funding.....
also have covered it does not necessarily mean less quality care, really no reason for it.
tho i agree there are simply people who are AGAINST the idea, as slightofjeff mentioned earlier. while i find it amazing any one would not want care, or somehow feels it's a greater need to have 'choice' as in how much they get to pay in, who pays in, etc....obviously, there are people who do. fair enough. however, not liking the idea is not equal to it not being very possible to do, and to do well...and i personally think the 'greater good' of EACh and every one of us having healthcare for life, at all stages of life, no matter what....is worth these few 'concessions'.....tho i realize, many disagree.
so it CAN be funded!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
ok fair enough.. hugs and kisses
xoxo
essentially I want high quality care for all. while I dont believe UHC is the answer, I do believe we can take smaller steps to maybe get there one day. for example, Universal healthcare for the elderly, children, unemployed, veterans, and I'm sure there are some special circumstances I'm leaving out.
Most people don't choose to have no insurance
And yes Emergency rooms are suppose to stabilize you if you come in with a life threatening injury regardless of ability. But do they always no. And define stabilize..... :?
Should be common sense however many do not have the ability to comprehend
yes eating is right, that is why millions are spent a year to feed the homeless, I suppose you would just let them starve to death
and yes health care is a right, you are no better then anyone else thus do not deserve any better health care
sad that people in prisons get better health care then some hard working folks with jobs but with employers that don't offer insurance
profit is a motivator, in that most of work to get paid, we make money from our services but that is not what was originally discussed, he said profit leads to innovations which is obviously not true as seen by the current "economic crises"
The Supposed Difficulties of Converting to Single-Payer
By Joel A. Harrison
I’ll leave the political difficulties aside, e.g. lobbyist, bought and paid for politicians. Let's just go down the list:
1. We already have FICA and Medicare Taxes, so employers and individuals will just continue paying them, except the Medicare tax will be called the Single-Payer Tax and the percentage of income up to a cap will be increased. Compare this with employers having to negotiate each year with insurance companies, paying separately to them, and each year having to renegotiate, or change policies as rates spiral up. Gee, I think the former a no-brainer.
2. Doctors and hospitals already submit bills to Medicare and to umpteen additional insurance companies, each with numerous different policies, e.g. with different deductibles and copays. So with Single-Payer, they continue to submit; but just to Medicare, now the Single-Payer. This may be national, regional, or even by State; but now they will submit to just one entity. Gee, I think this also a no-brainer.
3. Doctors and hospitals every year have to negotiate contracts with a myriad of different insurers. With single-payer, for instance, each specialty medical society will negotiate with one entity. The negotiations will probably be based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (see article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-B ... alue_Scale). Basically, researchers looked at all medical diagnoses and procedures and based on things like training needed, level of skill, time taken, etc. created a scale. One then decides on how much each point on the scale is worth and adjust it for cost of living differences. Just to simply, imagine an office visit is given 1 point and an appendectomy 24. One could negotiate $50 per point so an office visit would get $50 and the surgeon performing an appendectomy $1200. One can then add an additional 5% for New York City doctors because of cost of living. This isn’t the real points; but just to give an idea. Medicare and many insurance companies already use this system. So, once a year, instead of a myriad of negotiations, the medical societies, perhaps regionally, or state-wise, will negotiate with the single-payer board. Gee, once more I think this a no-brainer.
4. An electronic database for patient records will need to be developed. The VA already has an excellent one in the public domain which could be used as a starting point. A panel could be created by our National Academy of Science to bring the best experts together to develop a user friendly version with appropriate safeguards. Then all doctors’ offices should be given computers and appropriate training, paying the doctors for their time. While this will cost money upfront, it will save tons down the line.
5. I am not an expert; but understand enough about databases, having created a few complex ones in Access, to know that whether one contains 1,000, 100,000, etc., once the fields are created, the data entry for additional records is not a problem. Modifications to the Medicare database can be made or see above point # 4 - Medicare will need to hire more data entry personnel and train them; but there will be plenty available who previously worked for the for-profit insurance companies.
6. Many current employees of the for-profit insurance companies and in the billing offices of doctors and hospitals have medical training or, at least college degrees. Those with medical training will be get jobs using them with patients. Others will need training. Well, after World War II we had the GI Bill which in many ways created our middle class and gave an enormous boost to our economy. If we could offer training, education, and living allowances to 10 million returning veterans, I’m sure we can manage with a half million or fewer who lost their jobs working in the conversion to single-payer. Remember that the GI Bill applied at a time when our national debt because of the war was enormous; but the debt added by the GI Bill shrunk as GDP grew because of it. Also keep in mind that most health insurance companies cover more than health insurance and so many of their personnel will remain. The others can be retrained for jobs that actually benefit our society rather than administrative waste that actually harms us by creating a fragmented complex counterproductive system. Some will get training as nurses, lvns, other auxiliary medical personnel, teachers, social workers, school counselors, etc. We really need more home health care nursing personnel. Many who end up in a nursing home can remain at home with the right support network. This is not only better for the patient; but cheaper. Through Medicaid we already pay for most nursing homes, under single-payer we will cover home health care, saving money and allowing many to retain their dignity and independence.
7. All citizens and legal residents will be issued a card. In 1966 we began enrolling seniors in Medicare, 10s of millions of them. It took a couple of years altogether; but it wasn’t that difficult. With single-payer people will fill out a simple form and mail it in or, perhaps, we could just automatically mail the single-payer card to everyone registered with Social Security and just need to register children and newborns. I’m sure an efficient method can be developed. Will it guarantee we get every last person, probably not, and will it guarantee we won’t include some illegals, probably not; but neither does our current fragmented system cover everyone, in fact, we know it doesn’t with almost 100 million either un- or underinsured, and some illegals manage to get medical care. Single-payer will eventually cover everyone, and it will be easier to police for fraud.
Basically, the transition to a single-payer system will be from complexity to simplicity. Will it go smoothly? Probably not; but compared to what? Our current anything but smoothly functioning system. With proper planning it is doable. Not only will it save money, but actually simplify almost everything. Patients will choose their own doctors or hospitals. Scientific studies will be conducted to evaluate what really works, what works best, and what doesn’t work. It is currently estimated that over 1/3 of all medical interventions either are worthless or actually do harm.
A single-payer database will actually facilitate improvements in care. Just as an example, several years ago one doctor had a patient with a very rare disorder, something he had not seen before. He just happened to mention this at a table with other colleagues and one other had recently seen the same disorder, eventually discovering several more through e-mails. They all discovered they had given their patients the same drug and reported it to the FDA. It was fortunate that the first doctor had mentioned it in the vicinity of another who also had recently seen the rare disorder because it was rare. With a single-payer database, teams will run programs to screen for rare disorders and will be able much more quickly to investigate them. Clinical trials on drugs may use several thousand patients. If severe side-effects only occur with 1 in 100,000, they will often not discover them until much later through after marketing surveillance. Using the database they can compare various surgical and medical interventions for a particular diagnosis, leading to further research. It will be easier to track errors. And patient records will be transportable. After Katrina, VA patients from New Orleans could go to any VA hospital with their complete medical records available. No way with a myriad of private insurers.
Given everything that is wrong with our current system including:
1. Costly as percentage of GDP, taking monies that could be used for other important things such as schools, infrastructure, research and development;
2. Difficulties in obtaining comprehensive, coordinated, continuity of care;
3. Un- and underinsured, delaying care until needing more costly care which is often too late, also clogging unnecessarily our emergency rooms;
4. Doctors wasting up to 2 hours per day arguing with insurance companies;
5. Those insured facing delays and denials, bankruptcy, and even loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, including as result of long term illness;
6. Harming our international competitiveness, e.g. American manufactured car needs to add about $1600 to price because of health costs compared with Canada, France, etc.;
7. Forcing our companies to devote time and energy getting health care for their employees whereas they should be concentrating on their products and/or services;
8. Job lock where people either stay at a job or seek jobs because of health care rather than where their skills and talents lay, thus negatively affecting productivity; and
9. Higher rate of medical errors than many other countries, lower life-expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher number of premature deaths and disabilities for treatable medical conditions.
Many other modern industrialized nations have managed to develop some form of universal non-profit health care system with most offering comprehensive cost-effective quality care, often with far less wait than here, patient choice of doctors and hospitals, and at a lower cost.
Gradualism, given all of the above, is just a code word for keeping the unearned, disruptive, counterproductive profits of a dysfunctional fragmented for-profit health care industry that never should have been allowed to come into being in the first place (a recent phenomenon even in the U.S. basically starting in the 1980s).
Anyone supporting gradualism has either not really studied the problems we face (just as one example look at Barlett and Steele’s book, “Critical Condition), and all the research and studies on single-payer and international comparisons (many can be found on Physicians for a National Health Programs website at www.pnhp.org. Or is a shill for the for-profit health care industry.
Don't fall for insurance industry PR or compromised "reform" that keeps insurance middlemen at the table. Support Single Payer!
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, lives in San Diego, where he does consulting in epidemiology and research design. He has worked in the areas of preventive medicine, infectious diseases, medical outcomes research, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. He has lived and studied in both Canada and Sweden.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I could not have said it better myself, innovation is not profitable therefor we have been in a stalemate in this country......
yes profit is a motivator (there are thousands of people trying to create the next big social networking site to launch and sell to google for 200 mil, but that is not innovation) I am not debating that,
but profit does not lead to progressive change or innovations
good read. makes sense.
i liked "Basically, the transition to a single-payer system will be from complexity to simplicity."
the entire article suggested that. turn this beast of a health care system into something a little more manageable. made sense to me.
HER statement.
yes it does. how the fuck is there a stalemate in this country? stalemate in what? I'm a photographer by hobby...seems like every few months a new, more expensive, camera is released from Nikon amd Canon. there are new features, more megapixels, etc. these innovations are driven by profit.
same goes for the drug companies. they are constantly researching and developing new drugs to make money.
throw socialism into the mix and that stops.
and how is trying to create the next big social networking site NOT innovation? thousands of young web developers, right now, are brainstorming new and INNOVATIVE ways for you and I to socially network with family and friends.
my most sincere apologies
We were discussing this last night. Profit can, in fact, stifle innovation. The reason we have been unable to innovate and find better energy policies is because we have been using the same technology for power for over 100 years. Why? Because the profits earned by old energy interests are being used to stifle any and all innovation (and competition) to ensure that their profits remain up. The market is not open and free, it is very closed. There is no money in medical innovation, the profit is all being reaped by insurance companies that will not allow any system that streamlines the process, protects uninsured people, or gives anyone the power to deal with doctors without them taking their cut as a middle man. Profit motive has stifled growth and innovation in health care, not promoted it.
who is "we"? the council of kids who just graduated law school who think they are important? I say bullshit. the are plenty of healthcare innovations going on...and the major thing driving that is profit. I dont see the life expectancy rate going down, do you? and it damn well should be considered how fat and lazy our country has become.
with oil and new energy technology, you might have a point, but not healthcare. but even with energy, I think there is PLENTY of innovations going on such as nanotechnology, solar, and wind. we just haven't figured it out yet.
Actually, it is. This is the first generation that's expected to not live as long as our parents.
where did you gather such information? and what are the reasons giving for that?
This was just the family sitting around talking about shit. My brother, a fellow law school grad, and my parents, both highly educated professionals that have had nightmares for years about their health care plans changing every year, shifting coverage, moving us to a different family practice every 2 years or so, etc. There is no consumer "choice" in this current system and if you think there is then I'M the one saying bullshit.
The energy innovations we do have are coming from GOVERNMENT funded universities, not GM, Ford, Exxon, etc. Yes, drug companies are doing lots of drug research, but 1) they're doing it by giving $ to universities and 2) they're still going to be able to turn a decent profit on a good drug, they just won't be able to bankrupt their customers to do it. They operate like the mafia now, or a heroin dealer... sky's the limit for a drug they know someone will DIE without. By your logic, our utilities companies should have gone out of business long ago. But they continue to operate profitably despite heavy government regulations. Or I can refer again to our public system for judges and attorneys for the destitute... that doesn't stop a lively and significant private legal sector with a pretty sizable profit. And I don't anyone arguing that profit motive has been good for our legal system. Because it has led to the exact problems we face with health care... willful self-serving complexity. You make the system so impossible for an individual to negotiate it alone and it ensures that your services (lawyers, health insurance agents) are absolutely necessary for every breath you draw and thus guarantee a lifetime of exorbitant income.
The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005; 352:1138-1145. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., Douglas J. Passaro, M.D., Ronald C. Hershow, M.D., Jennifer Layden, M.P.H., Bruce A. Carnes, Ph.D., Jacob Brody, M.D., Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Robert N. Butler, M.D., David B. Allison, Ph.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D.
Also, I learned about it in my public health classes. It's attributed to obesity. Life expectancy is also lower for Americans who are poor, which says a lot about how our current system is failing us.
See also: "Life Expectancy Declines in the United States" at http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/le_declines.htm
I think I mentioned before, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. America has become fat and lazy. but to be clear, this report says "potential" decline. secondly, this has nothing to do with lack of innovation in the healthcare field. I dont think all the money in the world can help cure the wave of obesity related health problems that are set to plague our nation.
bottom line, money and profits do spur on innovations. healthcare innovations are happening and will continue under a for profit system. it certainly could under a government run program as well. but that just means higher taxes to pay for it.
I am all for the poor in this country having access to healthcare....similar to an unemployment benefit. its how this plan is drawn up is the hard part.
That's just talking about the American life expectancy rate overall though. The 2nd article shows how life expectancy already has declined for particular populations, such as the poor.
The problem with the government providing healthcare only for the poor is that socio-economic status is a continuum - you're not either poor or rich; there's a whole middle-class out there that is screwed.
INCOME is the #1 predictor of health in this country - not lifestyle choices, genetics, etc. I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs and is a direct result of our for-profit system.
um. lifestyle choices are always the top predictor. a poor man who works out, eats healthy, doesnt smoke, can be 1000 times more healthy that a millionaire fatass who does nothing but eat like shit.