Solutions too costly
I have been following with great interest the stories in the Rocky Mountain News about all of the plans to solve Colorado’s health-care problems.
How is it that all of the plans cost more money to fix the problems than they are costing now? All these appear to be part of the Colorado Health-care Providers Income Guarantee Program.
None of these so-called plans will fix anything, but will just fleece the people who have the “income” to be taxed!
L. Allison, Elbert
"If you think Health Care is expensive now, wait until it's free", is so true and prophetical. Give givernment complete control of your life and you have become a slave. Unfortunately there are far too many wanna-be slaves in this country.
Posted by clyde on September 7, 2007 02:56 AMThe "solutions" are extremely costly for many reasons, but the largest being these solutions contain no restrictions. They include illegals, irresponsibles, etc. being able to receive unlimited care - all financed by working people's taxes. Those restrictions will kick in as taxpayers revolt in the future - limits on the number of kids you have, limits on your activities (just try getting free healthcare if you have a self-inflicted medical issue, such as from a hazardous hobby or hazardous sexual activity), etc. Also, note there are no "outs" for those who have already payed the price for federal healthcare, say through their voluntary military service.
Posted by RS on September 7, 2007 05:02 AMI agree with you Clyde! People don't realize the amount that people pay in taxes in these countries with "free health care"! On top of that they have to wait months to get an appointment and then wait hours when they get there. I do feel though that we need to do something about the Ins. Co. and Pharma co. in this country. They have to much control and are forcing costs sky high to where people can't afford ins. I don't know what the solution is but I keep hoping that a good idea surfaces. I work for a company that you have to work there 2 yrs and full time before you qualify for ins or even vacation. Last year I was 20 hrs. short for the year, they had closed for remodling for 10 days and I lost those hours. Anyway, I hope that the big corp. are the ones that get regulated in their costs and in their power, after all what is ins. for?!
Posted by Lisa on September 7, 2007 05:06 AMinsurance is for your protections lisa, and it is your responsibility to provide or not provide it for your self. some companies have benefits that include insurance and they help you provide the insurance you would like to have.
now the dumocrats believe everyone should have it and the government should be in charge of it. that gives them the power they want over your lives.
take a moment and try to think of a government program that works well.
didnt think you could find one and there are people who really want socialized health care.
one projection said it would cost 7 billion to save 1 billion in health care cost. that should have made believers out of everyone, but all they heard was the rich will pay more taxes and I get it free.
Why don't we stop with the tiresome and unverifiable anecdotes? Every other industrialized country somehow manages to provide health insurance for all its citizens, not only at a much lower per capita expense, but also with far better results. The World Health Association surveys of health care in different countries confirm this beyond doubt. But why rely on demonstrated facts when it's so much more satisfying to indulge one's political ideology?
Posted by Romulus on September 7, 2007 08:44 AMThe liberals are so happy with how the DMV's in this country are run that they want the government to also run healthcare!
Posted by on September 7, 2007 10:20 AMThere are many ways for the uninsured to get health care for free or reduced prices. There are clinics for preventative and on going care. The illegals even have their own clinics,with free or reduced care.
The hospitals end up writing the costs of people who cannot pay or they get government funding for people who cannot pay.
I do not want to pay for someone else's health care. My husband pays for ours and it isn't fair to him to add more taxes deducted from his pay check to pay for other people.
I realize some people really need care,I don't begrudge them that. However when someone else wants my family to pay for their irresponsibilty,I want a line drawn.
They are taking food out of my children's mouth to pay for their health care!
We are taxed enough. Raising taxes on a family of 4 who had 2 children because that's what they could afford and giving it to people without health care is insane!
My family standard of living should not go down so someone can get free health care it is not fair to my family.My husband works hard to provide for us and raising his taxes is denying him his wages that he works for and is denying our family the health insurance he works for.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Totally insane.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 7, 2007 10:38 AMRomulus:
The "free health care" in other countries is NOT free. Nearly 1/3 of everybody's income is taxed to provide this "free" health care. Yes everybody in these countries may have health care but the American health care often has better equipment, better/cleaner hospitals and clinics. Take a walk through some of the US's poorer clinics working with the poverty and you will get a taste of the majority of European clinics. Take a walk through a common clinic in the US and compare the two. There are a lot of differences. Both systems have drawbacks.
The American system has better equipment and facilities but not all can afford the expense of either a doctors visit or insurance. The Europeans have insurance coverage for all but their facilities and equipment are not as up to date as ours.
There isn't any one easy answer. To put a cap on insurance would cause the insurance companies to charge the maximum under the ruse that it's government mandated. The phone companies do this already. To cause a total social medicare program would cause the standard of medical care to be lowered; such as in Europe (now I am speaking in general terms).
The only answer I see is a higher standard of ethics and morals on the part of all CEO's, Directors, and all upper level management. Get rid of the greed at the top. How often do we read or hear in the news of employees getting laid off and then the CEO's of these major corporations, insurance and pharmaceutical companies included, getting million dollar bonuses and raises. Get rid of the greed at the top and the insurance rates and cost of medicines should come down. That is the only answer I've found.
But we all know, that ain't gonna happen.
Posted by Harry on September 7, 2007 10:59 AMAnd now, a glimps into the future of socialized medicine thru the eyes of John Edwards...
TIPTON, Iowa - — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care."It requires that everybody be covered."
"It requires that everybody get preventive care,"
"If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years."
"You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
I just wonder what sort of penalty will be applied if someone chooses to excersize their Constitutional right to be free?
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 11:41 AMThis is, as they say in court, a rebuttal response to directly contradict the post by Romulus.
First, it is the World Health ORGANIZATION, not Administration.
Secondly, the study is from 2000, 7 years old.
Thirdly, the US ranks number 1 in health responsiveness. Number 1
Fourthly, the WHO "compare(d) each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries." - which is what brought the US to 37. We have the most resources, the best educated physicians, and the highest standards.
Fifthly, WHO used 5 criteria in assessing Health Care within States. They are:
Responsiveness (US #1)
Fairness of Financial Contribution (knocked US to (55)
Overall level of Health (US 72 -we eat like crap and don't exercise and are mega-obese)
Distribution of Health (US ranks 3)
Distribution of Financing (15)
So in distribution and responsiveness we are not only top 5, but 3rd and 1st respectively. Read the actual report and understand what ALL the numbers mean, and the goal of the WHO in issuing this report. Some quotes from the actual report - and not from the media:
"It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance," says Dr Frenk. "Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich."
"The poor are treated with less respect, given less choice of service providers and offered lower- quality amenities," says Dr Brundtland. "In trying to buy health from their own pockets, they pay and become poorer."
Dr Christopher Murray, Director of WHO’s Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. says: "Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are underutilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual’s basic rights to health."
The World Health Report 2000 (1) consists of a message from the WHO’s Director-General, an overview, six chapters and statistical annexes. The chapter headings are "Why do health systems matter?", "How well do health systems perform?", Health services: well chosen, well organized?", "What resources are needed?", "Who pays for health systems?", and "How is the public interest protected?"
Read the thing. Make up your mind if the rankings are unbiased, or really just a report demonstrating what we already know, that we have the most responsive system in the world, we just need to figure out a way to help those that can't get insurance, or to demonstrate the importance of choosing insurance. We need to address the weaknesses without destroying the positives.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 11:53 AMThanks Dan2. I was hoping someone could reexplain the WHO... Again.
Recently, France has also reported their system is failing and they're eyeing the US health system to make improvments before they go bust.
That's scary considering the enormous amount of taxes those citizens have been paying for what suppose to be top notch healthcare system.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 12:15 PMNice, work, Dan2
I wonder how many of the lefties who favor socialized healthcare actually believe our congress intends to put themselves under the same healthcare system they want to push the rest of us into? The loudest Dems on this issue are folks like Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton- folks who pay $400 for a haircut, or get millions in book advances for books they don't even write themselves, aren't going to wait in line for healthcare like the rest of us will be told to do. Talk about 2 Americas...
Posted by Noggindog on September 7, 2007 01:25 PMTo 5:32 am,
I realize all of that and I am not for socialized health care for several reasons, one the cost that you will pay in taxes, and two the nannyism of the government. Not to mention the lines. I am not a republican, I was a democrat until I started learning some things and now I believe both party's suck. I see the politicians only for their own agenda and not really caring about the people in this country or our constitution. There is a reason for our constitution and it is what has sepparated us and made this country so great for 200 yrs. I believe the government is slowly destroying it. But I also am not for big business. They really don't care about the people in this country and the ins co. and the pharma co. are out of control! I used to beable to afford a really good ins. for my family and then it got more expensive and I switched to Kiaser, boy do they ever suck and then when I switched jobs they either didn't have ins. or you have to work there 2 yrs and full time to get it and even then it is not affordable. I believe there needs to be controls on the prices of not only the ins. co. but also the doctors and hospitals. To charge 100.00 for a tylenal is a joke and whatever else they decide to stick to you. At one time your doctors cared about you but now it seems they care about what script they can write for their "kick backs" or they are to arrogant to listen to you since you just might know your own body. Anyway, the system definitely needs work but I don't want to government to run it. I do believe in choices just make it so we can have a choice not "no choice at all".
Dan2:
You talk and talk and talk but all your obfuscation about the WHO report doesn't change a simple fact. The United States ranked number 1 in the world in health care expenditure per capita, and ranked 37th in overall health system performance. How good is that?
Posted by Romulus on September 7, 2007 03:09 PMWhere is Truth with his Utopian views on how great a socialized system would be?
Posted by on September 7, 2007 05:25 PMI changed my mind, I just watched Sicko by Micheal Moore and all of you need to see this movie. Until you watch this you don't have anything to talk about coz you don't know what you are talking about. They fill your heads with lies about universal health care so that they can keep raking in the money and it is literally killing people. It is time for this country to wake up and we need to take care of each other, not turn people away knowing they are going to die just because of an ins company doesn't want to pay or that they don't have coverage. If you really think you are studying all the facts you are wrong until you see this film.
Posted by Lisa on September 7, 2007 09:51 PMGet real! Insurance is NOT healthcare. It is a way to funnel money from your pocket into the insurance companies' coffers. Then THEY tell you whether they cover you or not, for most procedures. We all pay for each others' healthcare, one way or another and you can't change that fact no matter threads you post here. The phony arguments about choice disappear when you become seriously ill or injured. Then the premiums AND taxes you and I pay go toward your problems.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 8, 2007 01:09 PMLisa,
Insurance does not kill people. Insurance pays some medical expenses for people who pay those insurance companies to provide that service. People die of injuries and illnesses. Not all of them are curable. Some are not even treatable, but most doctors suffer from Captain Kirk Syndrome and refuse to believe that they can fail. This results in many different treatments, drugs and therapies. Sometimes it results in cures. Usually it results in high costs to all concerned with a benefit to only that percentage of patients who also have CKS.
That cost is passed on to us through insurance. It never goes away.
Michael Moore makes profitable lies that fit his worldview. I hope if he were right wing I'd be as firmly against him as I have been since his Bowling for Columbine. The truth doesn't depend on one person. Look at the actual reports coming from France where they are trying to modify their system. Read the English newspapers online and see how many people there find the system to be comforting. There are accusations of denial of antibiotics for seniors with pneumonia. Moore praises the Cuban system as being wonderfully superior to ours. Why did Castro chose to call in Spanish doctors and bypass his own system when he needed surgery? Look at the recently published Canadian report on breast cancer. Their lower overall costs are partially the result of denying care. It might be a practical approach but to decide that the United States is evil because we refuse to pick the pockets of the workers in favor of those refuse to take care of themselves is to be naive or just stupid. You don't sound stupid.
Posted by momma y on September 8, 2007 02:49 PMi have worked for 5 different companies in 20 years; i have had health insurance with each company within 6 months of employment ( three different industries) the last 2 jobs (same industry) provided health insurance after 30 days of employment (my current employer pays all cost for MY health insurance) i do have to pay for my spouse and it is realitively expensive (apprx. $400) i have been recruited by other companies that have similar benefits and i have sought other employment that also have similar benefits; I have not seen a problem with access to insurance coverage EVER and i make an average salary. Access to healthcare seems to be one of the major issues of pro-universal HC (refused treatment due to no insurance). I think the problem is expense not quantity or quality; we have to be better consumers to effect the price; we also have to quit paying for non-payors like illegal immigrants who pack our emergncy rooms
Posted by brain on September 8, 2007 04:37 PMYou can trust me, I'm from the insurance company.
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — Private insurance companies participating in Medicare have been allowed to keep tens of millions of dollars that should have gone to consumers, and the Bush administration did not properly audit the companies or try to recover money paid in error, Congressional investigators say in a new report."
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 08:07 AMYou are correct about those numbers Romulus. We do spend too much per capita. On almost everything.
The 37 ranking does nothing for anyone who actually studied the report and didn't rely on the media version of it. It is the same as reading the assessment reports of the IPCC, the so called "experts" on climate change. I would consider this report about as highly as the IPCC 4th assessment report. Not sufficient to wipe my arse with, much less glean any importance from the summation. Sorry to come back so late to this topic.
Posted by Dan2 on September 10, 2007 02:34 PM