The face of Hillary’s health-care future
To those who are leaning toward Hillary Clinton and her promise of “health care for everyone,” this is otherwise known as socialized medicine.
I have a good example of this in my own family. A few years ago my cousin was the steward/mechanic for Lord John Browne, CEO of BP. In between Browne’s trips, my cousin would have to stay around ready to leave anytime.
This trip he waited in a five-star hotel in London. A cold quickly turned into bronchial pneumonia. The company called a doctor for him and the doctor prescribed Augmentin, an antibiotic used for ear infections. My cousin had to come to the United States to get treated properly.
This is what those who favor this approach have to look forward to. Personally I’ll keep good old American health care any day!
Nancy Serra-Spencer, Denver
Nancy,
Do a Google on "argument by anecdote" and you will see why your letter is rooted in a logical fallacy.
Posted by Charles B on May 3, 2007 07:45 AMThis government can't run any bureaucracy efficiently. What makes you think socialized medicine would be any different?
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 08:56 AMKW--
Of course this gov't can't run anything. But, THIS gov't has no intention of instituting single-payer health care.
The NEXT gov't/administration, run by a democrat, will me much more capable.
Posted by Tbone on May 3, 2007 09:05 AMYou're dreaming TBone. Reps, Dems, they all screw up and are mostly concerned with themselves.
I'm surprised you have so much faith in them.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 09:19 AMAs healthcare providers would still be in private practice, this would not be a socialized system. There would be socialized aspects to the system. A blend of private and public, and let's not forget, the public is you, the people, and you, the people, would be funding this system.
That being said, I'm not on board Hillary's proposed system, or any system that still relies on employer-provided healthcare. If we can move away from that, I believe we'll see less outsourcing overseas, because employers won't be struggling with the ever-increasing cost of providing health care to their employees and people won't be without insurance if they lose their jobs, or want to change their jobs.
Posted by mytwosense on May 3, 2007 09:26 AMIf you think health care is expensive now, you wouldn't believe how expensive it would become if you get if for "free" through a tax funded system. Anybody who thinks that the government would be effective in taking care of your health has never been in the military. I have seen first hand how incapable the government is at being in charge of ANYTHING important. I am serious. I work for the government. I should be retiring in about seven months and cannot wait to get away from the most incompetent and careless group of inept employees I have ever imagined. The thought of having the government handle my health care scares the heck out of me! I really think that the people who want a socialized health care system have no idea at all what they are asking for. They think they know, but what they get would be something very different.
Tbone, you are counting your chickens before they hatch. The NEXT gov't/administration might NOT be run by a Democrat. But if it is and you think that would change the efficiency of a government run health care system, you are kidding yourself.
I still can't believe bill clinton appointed somebody so unqualified and incompetent as hillary to do a healthcare plan.Somebody that he might of bend sleeping with.A impeachable offense.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 09:42 AMMr. Twosense: "That being said, I'm not on board Hillary's proposed system, or any system that still relies on employer-provided healthcare. If we can move away from that, I believe we'll see less outsourcing overseas, because employers won't be struggling with the ever-increasing cost of providing health care to their employees and people won't be without insurance if they lose their jobs, or want to change their jobs."
I totally agree with twosense. Hillary's original plan (I don't know if she has a new one) was obviously a sop to the insurance and related industry, that sucks a huge portion out of every health care dollar. She's always been in their pocket though.
Ms. Serra-Spencer: "Personally I’ll keep good old American health care any day!"
The 49 million or so Americans without health coverage may not feel so sentimental about it.
"this is otherwise known as socialized medicine".
Well, I guess that settles it. End of argument.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 10:04 AMsocalized medicine in countries that have it all have one thing in common. a very high tax rate to pay for it.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 10:05 AMThey also all have another thing in common: socialized medicine. What do you propose we do about the uninsured? Or is it, children and all, just their problem? What about those of us who have insurance, but have to wade through a morass of private sector red tape to figure out what's covered and what's not, and for how much, and who we can see, and who we can't see, and how long do we have to wait (a waiting period!) to see those who we can see?
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 10:11 AMGo with Bush's plan for a tax credit for getting insurance.I wouldn't pass it up.And then I would set up a health savings account.But we have dem. majority in congress so no insurance for us.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 10:19 AMGo with Bush's plan for a tax credit for getting insurance.I wouldn't pass it up.And then I would set up a health savings account.But we have dem. majority in congress so no insurance for us.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 10:19 AM"The 49 million or so Americans without health coverage may not feel so sentimental about it."
Do you have evidence of this? A credible study perhaps?
Even teddy's gross exageration only put the number at 30 million. And that was based on a faulty study.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 10:20 AMEven at 49 million or 30 million uninsured, is it the same people year after year who are uninsured? How does that number account for someone who was uninsured in April yet acquired insurance in May?
Also, how many of those millions were healthy and young individuals who don't need a doctor?
Furthermore, how many of those millions are able to pay for their own medical care without insurance?
Regardless, a national health care system is unconstitutional. Let the States decide how to handle their citizens health care.
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 10:35 AMI know a couple of people from England and have relatives in Canada and they do not like their government health care at all. Why would we want it? Of course the Democrat party is now the Socialist party and some of them are even starting to admit it though not all but that is the health care they demand in that system.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 10:40 AMWhy is it that no one pays any attention to Keith?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 10:46 AMKW, I doubt you will heed this, but the great number of uninsured isn't news. The press has been mentioning the percentage for years. According to the report below, it's about 16%. I took 49 mil. from something someone posted on another thread, divided by 300 mil (our current pop.) to make sure it made sense, and it did: 16%.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 11:10 AMSo, you think our government can run a socialized medicine program for 300,000,000 people? Well, just go spend a couple of days at Walter Reed. The socialized medicine that exists for our troops is an embarressment at best, and is only for a very small fraction of 300,000,000.
Posted by Mike S. on May 3, 2007 11:11 AMAnderson - That's the report I was refering to. Like John II stated, they count someone who was uninsured for 1 month as completely uninsured. The report also includes those who are uninsured by choice, opting to pay for medical out of pocket as needed.
This reports was created for the purpose of furthering the idea of universal care as a drastic need in our society.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 11:18 AManderson,
You said:
"According to the report below, it's about 16%."
I'm curious as to what would be an acceptable percentage of uninsured that would allay your desire for universal coverage. Would 10% satisfy you? 8%? 5%?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 11:21 AMKW, where do you get the "one month only" count? I don't see that in the report. It says a sample--which suggests a snap shot, insured or uninsured. If you see something to the contrary, please let me know.
Your insinuation that the report was created to promote a specific policy is total rot. The cdc is about as reliable a source as we have on this issue. You are free, of course, to come to your conclusions, then work backwards to seek support for them.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 11:30 AM...or discard whatever information doesn't suit your purpose.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 11:43 AMKW
Below is a credible study from the Census Bureau and it shows that you are wrong, and there were 46.6 million uninsured Americans in 2005 (pg 27). The problem is that healthcare, regardless or private or socialized care or any mix in between, needs to be available to everyone. Americans spend more of our GDP annually per capita than any other country in the world, yet we get less of an overall improvement in health for it. For example, in Italy, regardless of the faults in their system (all healthcare systems have faults), they have both a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the United States and yet they spend almost 50% less than we do on healthcare. Preventive healthcare is the key, as they have more of it and we now seem to have "DiseaseCare" rather than healthcare. Most of the 46+ million uninsured Americans never make it to a clinic/hospital until they are completely sick. So, you can see why we are spending so much. I agree that full-blown socialized medicine is not the answer, but what we have now, as well as all of the so-called fixes that the Bush administration advocates, are not the answer either. Maybe we should commission medical professionals, not the govt. to work on coming up with a system that meets everyone's healthcare needs. It can be done, just not by government lackeys who only have the interests of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in mind.
Link to credible Census Bureau study:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Good info Beavis, especially about Italy, but govt lackies for insurance cos? Please. Politicians, maybe. Professionals, no.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 11:57 AManderson,
Are you purposely ignoring my questions to you?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 12:00 PMAnderson
I didn't actually mean putting insurance co's in charge of it, but instead meant that maybe nurses ( I am one) usually aren't involved in the political side of healthcare, explore necessary change to the system.
Posted by Beavis on May 3, 2007 12:10 PMThanks Beavis. Different link to the same report from anderson. My point still stands. Bad info and a distorted report.
Even if we accept those numbers as accurate (which they're not), 16% is a very low number of uninsured.
KW,
Looks like anderson is mad at me because I refused to buy into his "single payer health plan".
Perhaps, you can ask him this question. Maybe he'll answer you:
anderson said:
"According to the report below, it's about 16%."
I'm curious as to what would be an acceptable percentage of uninsured that would allay your desire for universal coverage. Would 10% satisfy you? 8%? 5%?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 12:51 PM10:46 ,Because you don't have a clue what I'm talking about because of your lack of knowledge about the subject.Do you know why you are clueless?You will always be a dumb ass when you get your false information from liberal propanganda outlets.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 12:56 PMKW, you asked me for evidence. I provided it. I ask you for evidence, you do not. Yet you continue to argue the same point as before.
John II, You told me you weren't interested in reaching any sort of common ground. As such, there's really no purpose in me responding to you, just so you can do another twist and swipe. The poster who commented on this yesterday was dead on: you asked me a question about the downsides of healthcare, under the guise of an honest inquiry. I answered honestly to the best of my knowledge. But you were really just setting me up (it could have been anyone) so you could take a shot and express again your ideological fancies. An ideologue such as yourself, is not that far removed from a fundamentalist. The constitution is to be interpreted only one way: your way. The health care crisis can only be considered one way: your way. The government exists to serve only one person: you, and when it no longer serves that purpose, it is to be discarded. You are also related to that curious creature on the internet, we call a troll. You purposely set bait, then wait to jump on someone's back as they walk by. You are less interested in discussing policy than you are in getting a reaction. I told you yesterday your goodwill expired. I'm done playing.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 01:22 PMJohn II - I was thinking about how low 16% seemed before you asked it. Even reiterated in my last post since you hadn't been answered yet but as you can see...??? No response.
What's so amazing is how these people in favor of universal med insurance (not care) are so trusting of politicians to get it right. If you look back in history, very few things (if any) are run efficiently when the government is in charge.
FEMA
Social Securtity
Medicare
Welfare
Food Stamps
Immigration
(just to name a few problem areas)
How can they think this med system will be such a success?
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 01:22 PMKW: "What's so amazing is how these people so trusting of politicians to get it right. If you look back in history, very few things (if any) are run efficiently when the government is in charge."
How has the government ever got anything right? Or has it always been wrong? Maybe we should just abolish our govt, KW? Then you and your vigilante squads can hunt down Mexicans free of interference--unless of course you happen to run into a bigger mob.
anderson,
"You told me you weren't interested in reaching any sort of common ground. As such, there's really no purpose in me responding to you, just so you can do another twist and swipe."
So, you only converse with people who you can share common ground with? How about conversing simply to see how your position compares to someone else's position without necessarily coming to any sort of agreement?
"you asked me a question about the downsides of healthcare, under the guise of an honest inquiry. I answered honestly to the best of my knowledge. But you were really just setting me up (it could have been anyone) so you could take a shot and express again your ideological fancies."
So what? Of course, my question to you was a setup. And then I picked apart your answer. That's what debates and discussions are. I ask a question, you reply, I counter your reply, and you defend your positions. You could have asked me any question you wanted and I would have answered and subsequently defended my answer.
I was not rude to you nor did I call you any childish names. How can you post on this forum and get upset because someone asks you a setup question? It's only a setup question if your answer is susceptible to easily being refuted. If you can properly defend your answer, then my setup question only serves to showcase your position.
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 01:40 PManderson,"Then you and your vigilante squads can hunt down Mexicans free of interference"
What the hell are you talking about? Are you in the wrong thread or something?
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 01:47 PMJohn II...A typical Anderson ploy..can't answer so wiggles away as fast as he can.
It's like one lady commented about Anderson if he can't best you he(pouts sucks thumb) and wont play with you anymore.
Good for you John II YOU WON!!!!
And of course these discussions are all about taking "sides" and winners and losers.
"Are you a winner, son?"--Wes Benteen in 'Silver City'
"T is for Tro-lls, T is for Tennessee"--Tompall Glaser
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 01:57 PMT, I have yet to see you contribute anything positive to any letter or thread on this newspaper. Instead, it seems you are only waiting off to the side of the thread, just waiting to an opportunity to call me anyone else a leftist, or other disparaging term that comes to mind. I've met your type before.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 02:01 PManderson,
I wasn't looking to "win". I think my question is reasonable.
I'm curious as to what would be an acceptable percentage of uninsured that would allay your desire for universal coverage. Would 10% satisfy you? 8%? 5%?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 02:05 PMKW
When you can offer a more reputable study that proves that the Census study (commissioned under Bush's govt. I might add) is so terribly wrong, we'll all acknowledge it, dance a jig, and buy you a cigar! Until then, keep dreaming. You keep offering the same argument about how everyone else's facts are wrong or that their cited facts have some dark objective of furthering the call for socialized medicine. Give us solid evidence of that instead of more hot air.
Posted by Beavis on May 3, 2007 02:20 PMBeavis - Check out the questions that were asked and you will answer your own questions. The only thing that report pinpointed was that someone, at sometime, somewhere, may have been without med insurance. Whether it was 1 month or 1 year was irrelevant to the study. That's why it has been useless in showing any real data.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 02:58 PMBeavis - Bush isn't the one who oversaw the study, wrote the questions, etc.... He's the President. So your point there was...???
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 03:00 PMKW, you obviously *don't* comprehend what the report stands for, and again you're grasping for straws in an attempt to discount it. Apparently you relied only on John's unsupported statement about "one month" in proclaiming it was flawed.
Posted by anderson on May 3, 2007 03:15 PMRead the questions.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 03:17 PMBeavis, as a nurse, do you have any ideas? If all we do is argue for the sake of setting each other up, then I see little point in looking for common ground in a discussion. If this is just "gotya" why bother?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 03:29 PMSharon B.,
No one said we don't have to find common ground here.
anderson said a few days ago that a civil conversation is one where both sides find common ground.
It is nice to find common ground but it's not a necessity for civil discourse.
The "gotcha" part doesn't have to be acrimonious. If someone points out a flaw or something I never thought about in my argument, I feel good because I learned something new.
"Our strength grows out of our weakness. The indignation which arms itself with secret forces does not awaken until we are pricked and stung and sorely assailed. A great man is always willing to be little. Whilst he sits on the cushion of advantages, he goes to sleep. When he is pushed, tormented, defeated, he has a chance to learn something; he has been put on his wits, on his manhood; he has gained facts; learns his ignorance; is cured of the insanity of conceit; has got moderation and real skill. The wise man throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point. The wound cicatrizes and falls off from him like a dead skin, and when they would triumph, lo! he has passed on invulnerable. Blame is safer than praise. I hate to be defended in a newspaper. As long as all that is said is said against me, I feel a certain assurance of success. But as soon as honeyed words of praise are spoken for me, I feel as one that lies unprotected before his enemies. In general, every evil to which we do not succumb is a benefactor. As the Sandwich Islander believes that the strength and valor of the enemy he kills passes into himself, so we gain the strength of the temptation we resist." -- R.W. EmersonPosted by John II on May 3, 2007 03:42 PM
Free...But the patient doesn't get well!!
With socialized medicine according to Dr. Roberto Calderon a radiologist, who, for ten years worked in a socialized system and saw it from the inside argues forcefully that it doesn't work for the following five reasons:
1. The patient can't choose the doctor. The bureacratic process makes the important assignment of which physician shall treat the patient.
After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Theres little room for free choice-for shopping around-for switching from one doctor to another. When medicine has "to go by the book." Too much freedom for the patient makes life difficult for the bureaucrats. To much paperwork!!
2.The doctor can't choose the patient.
Assignments are assignments under socialized medicine. Referring a patient to another doctor is an unnecessary complication and it screws up the system.
Because medical services are "free" by the state, DEMAND GOES UP FOR SERVICES VERY QUICKLY, which means every doctor becomes overbooked and overworked. So, doctors recieve their order: just get the job done whether you like the patient or not and whether or not you are suitable for him/her.
3.The doctor is paid by the state usually once a month regardless of what, or how well, he or she did. Even an eighth-grader understands why this is a prescription for high cost and poor performance. What in the world makes socialists think that people will work harder and better for some faceless bureaucracy than they work for themselves?
4.The patient doesn't get counsel from the doctors. Ever since the Hippocratic oath was written,it has been regarded as an important, even vital role of the healer to provide advice ,comfort, and a positive mental attude to the sick. This is totally lost when doctors,in effect, become short-order cooks in an UNcompetitive state-run medical soup-kitchen.
5. The patient doesn't get well. That's exactly the way Dr. Calderon puts it. In other words, far to many patients under socialized medicine are "chronically sick" as a direct consequence of the previous four points.
Moreover, socialized medicine inevitably means that the right equipment, and medicines and physicians, aren't available at all. People go on long waiting lists(gee, where have I heard this before???) to have operations performed, and many of them die before the ever get to the head of the line.
The only consolation the patient gets from all of this is that he won't get a bill in the mail. His taxes and the taxes of everybody else pick up the tab.
All of this misery and agony is for "free"
I think I would rather rely on freedom of choice, not government, to cure the ailments of medical care!
Mr.T, given what you said above about socialized medicine, what changes and improvements would you suggest for the medical system we have in place here in the US?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 3, 2007 04:00 PMHow bout for greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run...with government paid vouchers for the very poor and MINIMAL regulation. Example: Australia... they have a large private sector health system with government reimbursement for privately-provided services.
Posted by T on May 3, 2007 04:57 PMAny coverage that's mandatory is too much for me.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 05:04 PMShouldn't it be left to each State to decide on it's own type of health care system?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 05:17 PMMr.T, would you impose any restrictions on ownership, or would it be free market?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 3, 2007 05:46 PMI think I would rather rely on freedom of choice, not government, to cure the ailments of medical care!
Do we have that freedom of choice now under the employer-funded system of healthcare? It seems to me you have to take what plan they offer, or not - and that's your choice. And if you want to work somewhere else, but they have a plan less than what you want, then you're limited in choice again.
The single-payer plans I've read about don't put restrictions on healthcare providers one can see.
Posted by mytwosense on May 4, 2007 09:39 AMStill no one is paying any attention to Keith. His posts are so outrageous they crack me up every time.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 01:56 PMOn health savings accounts, a triple by-pass costs 300,00.00 over a quarter of a million dollars. How long would a person need to save for that? What happens when the HSA runs out.?
I know a number of pople in health care and they have suggested some things.
1. Clinics open evenings and weekends for people who can`t miss work.
2. Clinics in shopping malls, run by nurses NP`s. This is already being done.
3. More health care poviders, not just doctors.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 06:29 PMKeith, you know if you are ever hurt, say in a Wal-mart, you had better pray for a good lawyer because corperations don`t voluntarily help people they harm. They have to be prodded into it. Super rich lawyers are no better then super rich CEO`s and you know that. The difference is that republicans are CEO`s and Democrats are lawyers, sometimes, but in the South they are Repubs.
Neither group is going to be less rich any time soon, but both try to get the average joe to support their view of the country.
Bush is against what he calls frivilous law suits because the money to pay them came from insurance companys and THEY are usually all Republilcans, all the time.
Tax write off would be great, and young people can invest in HSAs but how long for one major operation? How many years for a by-pass which even young people sometimes need.
And what do we do with neo-natal care which is beyond any young couple to pay? I`ll tell you what we do, we write it off. Everybody pays for it. Just like illegals and anyone else who can`t or won`t pay. We pay one way or another.
The current system keeps corporations , drup companys, insurance companys, Doctors , CEO`s and trial lawyers super rich.
And they will stay rich if enough people think it is to their own best interest to not look into a system that has some aspects of social welfare.
As long as people get the word socialism thrown at them when they try to suggest national health care, that ends the discussion right there.
(You freaking phony, I always knew you were putting us on, and you are really intelligent.)
One last thing on mal-practice insurance. Here we have rates going up , not because cases have been lost, but because they can go up. Like gas prices .
This is ironic ,Republican owned insurance companys sticking it to Republican Doctors.
You are forever ruined on this forum, no one will ever think you are on meth again.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 09:25 PMKeith, you know if you are ever hurt, say in a Wal-mart, you had better pray for a good lawyer because corperations don`t voluntarily help people they harm. They have to be prodded into it. Super rich lawyers are no better then super rich CEO`s and you know that. The difference is that republicans are CEO`s and Democrats are lawyers, sometimes, but in the South they are Repubs.
Neither group is going to be less rich any time soon, but both try to get the average joe to support their view of the country.
Bush is against what he calls frivilous law suits because the money to pay them came from insurance companys and THEY are usually all Republilcans, all the time.
Tax write off would be great, and young people can invest in HSAs but how long for one major operation? How many years for a by-pass which even young people sometimes need.
And what do we do with neo-natal care which is beyond any young couple to pay? I`ll tell you what we do, we write it off. Everybody pays for it. Just like illegals and anyone else who can`t or won`t pay. We pay one way or another.
The current system keeps corporations , drup companys, insurance companys, Doctors , CEO`s and trial lawyers super rich.
And they will stay rich if enough people think it is to their own best interest to not look into a system that has some aspects of social welfare.
As long as people get the word socialism thrown at them when they try to suggest national health care, that ends the discussion right there.
(You freaking phony, I always knew you were putting us on, and you are really intelligent.)
One last thing on mal-practice insurance. Here we have rates going up , not because cases have been lost, but because they can go up. Like gas prices .
This is ironic ,Republican owned insurance companys sticking it to Republican Doctors.
You are forever ruined on this forum, no one will ever think you are on meth again.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 09:27 PMHow is that for double posting?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 10:49 PMSharon B.,
You said:
"On health savings accounts, a triple by-pass costs 300,00.00 over a quarter of a million dollars. How long would a person need to save for that? What happens when the HSA runs out.?"
That's like complaining that you can't build a house with your screwdriver alone. The HSA is a tool created to help pay for the smaller stuff so an individual can afford insurance for the bigger stuff.
It was never meant to pay for triple bypass surgery. Did you really not know that?
Posted by John II on May 5, 2007 11:57 AMI'm not sure what Keith's foray into a discussion of malpractice suits has to do with proposals to universalize health care. I mean, if we were to (preposterously) end all such lawwuits, how many more people would have health coverage that don't have it now?
Ralph Nader was on the Aaron Harber show last night (broadcast again at 2:00 Sun I believe), and he said something funny: more money is spent on cat and dog food in 6 months than is paid in medical settlements in a year.
As for HSAs, again, how is it that the presently uninsured would be covered?
The primary reasons for universal coverage is to: (1) provide health care for those who don't have it; (2) cost savings through eliminating the middle man, including the efficiencies that would inure.
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 12:00 PM
anderson,
"I'm not sure what Keith's foray into a discussion of malpractice suits has to do with proposals to universalize health care. I mean, if we were to (preposterously) end all such lawwuits, how many more people would have health coverage that don't have it now?"
The main problem with malpractice lawsuits is that it scares many doctors, including my wife, from opening private practice. Some like to cite statistics that say malpractice lawsuits count for only 2% of health care spending. Health care spending is about $2 trillion dollars. That means malpractice lawsuits account for something like $40 billion. That's enough to scare away a lot of doctors.
Having less doctors opening private practices means less competition in the health care industry. Less competition means higher prices and less availability of health care.
"As for HSAs, again, how is it that the presently uninsured would be covered?"
Because the goal of HSA's is to reduce the cost of health insurance thereby making it cheaper for those who cannot currently afford it.
Posted by John II on May 5, 2007 12:35 PM"Do we have that freedom of choice now under the employer-funded system of healthcare? It seems to me you have to take what plan they offer, or not - and that's your choice. And if you want to work somewhere else, but they have a plan less than what you want, then you're limited in choice again."- Mytwosense
Or, you have the 'choice' of paying for it YOURSELF. Why is that we all (or at least most of us) are responsible for our own lodging, food, clothing, transportation, etc... but feel entitled to health insurance from someone else; either our employer, or government?
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 04:24 PMKeith, did you even read the rest of my post.?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 5, 2007 06:07 PM"Or, you have the 'choice' of paying for it YOURSELF."
Unless you don't have the money to pay for it.
Health care can be very expensive, and its need often cannot be predicted. The concept behind insurance, and what makes it work, is shared risk (our govt does and could use the same concept in universal coverage). Money is set aside in a pool that pays for sickness when it occurs. I'm not a soothsayer so I don't know if or when I'm going to get sick. I recognize the possbility too that I could get seriously ill--far beyond my means to pay for it. That's me, a working person. Some people don't work (children, their caretakers, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed). They can get sick too. And so your simple prescription that we pay for it ourselves is fine, unless one doesn't have the money to pay for it, and then you're suggesting we do what? Give them cake?
"And so your simple prescription that we pay for it ourselves is fine, unless one doesn't have the money to pay for it, and then you're suggesting we do what? Give them cake?"
Nobody is refused care at a hospital. We have a safety net if an uninsured person comes in needing care, just as we have food stamps and other programs for those who cannot afford food. (and for some who choose to spend their money on other things)
I can provide for my own health insurance (as I provide for my own housing, food, clothing, transportation, and many other things).
Leave me out of your collective programs.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 08:48 AM"Collective programs" sounds like a synonym for socialism. Sounds scary.
Posted by anderson on May 6, 2007 10:33 AMI'm posting this only to change the message count for the blog. I can no longer stomach seeing the number 69 associated with Hillary.
Posted by KW on May 6, 2007 10:54 AMYou see her as a sexual object instead of a thinker or leader then? Do you think a woman could be elected to the presidency of the United States?
Posted by anderson on May 6, 2007 11:16 AM"You see her as a sexual object instead of a thinker or leader then?"
Anderson - Do you read the posts before you respond to them? I don't wish to think of Hillary and sex together, EVER! But if you read my post you would have gotten that.
Posted by KW on May 6, 2007 12:20 PM"'Collective programs' sounds like a synonym for socialism. Sounds scary."
Yes, very scary.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 01:19 PMJohn II asked Anderson:
I'm curious as to what would be an acceptable percentage of uninsured that would allay your desire for universal coverage. Would 10% satisfy you? 8%? 5%?
John II quoted cites I provided him about malpractice costs:
Some like to cite statistics that say malpractice lawsuits count for only 2% of health care spending. Health care spending is about $2 trillion dollars. That means malpractice lawsuits account for something like $40 billion. That's enough to scare away a lot of doctors.
Having less doctors opening private practices means less competition in the health care industry. Less competition means higher prices and less availability of health care.
Folks, take a good look above at a textbook example of hypocrisy. John II indicates by his questioning of Anderson that 16% is a minimal number of uninsured people and not enough to justify a single-payer solution.
Yet 2% of healthcare spending in this country allocated to malpractice costs - and his child psychologist wife who is supposedly afraid to open her own practice because she's worried if a patient commits suicide she'll get sued - is enough to send him in a dither.
Someone suggested this man is not a conservative but an anarchist, and I'm really beginning to believe it. Not only is he fervently anti- American government, but he would actually be in favor of taking away American citizens' access to the courts, even though medical malpractice costs account for a measley percentage of overall healthcare expenditures. Even though out of those costs, medical claims without merit usually are denied compensation. Even though that out of those cases, the majority did involve medical errors. Facts he smoothly ignores in his case for taking away our legal rights to protect us from medical mistakes that were not our fault.
But we can see that when money is pitted against people, John II will always take the side of the former. When we're talking about percentages versus people, no big deal. Percentages versus money - suddenly, that's a big deal to John II.
Posted by mytwosense on May 6, 2007 01:32 PMKW, you said:
If you look back in history, very few things (if any) are run efficiently when the government is in charge.
FEMA
Social Securtity
Medicare
Since Medicare is a single payer system of healthcare we currently do have in this country, can you please explain how it is inefficient compared to our present employer-funded, private insurance system?
In doing so, can you please explain why Medicare's administrative costs are drastically lower than the employer-funded, private insurance system? This would appear to be one aspect of Medicare that is significantly more efficient than the private insurance system.
Posted by mytwosense on May 6, 2007 01:49 PMmytwosense,
"Folks, take a good look above at a textbook example of hypocrisy. John II indicates by his questioning of Anderson that 16% is a minimal number of uninsured people and not enough to justify a single-payer solution."
I never indicated 16% was acceptable. I was trying to ask anderson if there was an acceptable percentage of uninsured that would mollify his fervor for universal coverage. If there was an acceptable percentage, perhaps we could work on solutions to reach that number that didn't include a single payer system.
"Yet 2% of healthcare spending in this country allocated to malpractice costs - and his child psychologist wife who is supposedly afraid to open her own practice because she's worried if a patient commits suicide she'll get sued - is enough to send him in a dither."
That's some brave talk there. I am not in a dither. I can afford my own health care. If $40 billion in malpractice costs is acceptable to you then perhaps you can afford your own health care as well. But, for those who can't afford their own health care, $40 billion may seem like a lot to them.
"Someone suggested this man is not a conservative but an anarchist, and I'm really beginning to believe it."
Why? Because I don't want socialized medicine in this country?
"Not only is he fervently anti- American government, but he would actually be in favor of taking away American citizens' access to the courts, even though medical malpractice costs account for a measley percentage of overall healthcare expenditures."
When did I ever suggest taking away citizens' access to the courts? I explicitly told you I'd rather limit damages than limit lawsuits. I believe you were in agreement with that point. I'll have to review our discussion.
As for the measly percentage, I think you are relying on that 2% way too much. Health care spending totals $2 trillion dollars. What does that include? Regular check-ups? Sore throats? Flu? Teeth cleaning? These are common medical expenses that probably do not generate a lot of malpractice lawsuits. If you want to throw around statistics, tell me the percentage of malpractice costs compared to specific medical procedures and practices.
You also seem ignore the psychological factors that scare doctors from opening their own practice. You read 2% and throw that number around as if it's trivial or "measley". To doctors, $40 billion may be enough for some to say,"It's not worth the risk, I'll stick with the hospital."
"But we can see that when money is pitted against people, John II will always take the side of the former. When we're talking about percentages versus people, no big deal. Percentages versus money - suddenly, that's a big deal to John II."
You're getting a bit brazen in your comments to me. Let's not argue ad hominem. Argue my points and cool it with the dramatic accusations and false characterizations.
You're getting a bit brazen in your comments to me. Let's not argue ad hominem. Argue my points and cool it with the dramatic accusations and false characterizations.
Just thought I'd see how you like it for a change when the tables are turned. Not surprisingly - you don't.
If you want to throw around statistics, tell me the percentage of malpractice costs compared to specific medical procedures and practices.
Why? The burden of proof is on you, not me, to defend your position that, ok, let's call it "tort reform" is a primary strategy to solve our healthcare crisis. I assume it's a primary strategy in your mind as you mention it in just about every thread on healthcare reform. You do have confidence in your position enough to defend it, right, and information to support it?
If not, then I want to know why you mention malpractice costs in so many threads about healthcare. I want to know why you feel American citizens are largely to blame for our healthcare system's deep flaws, not the insurance and hospital industries, by exercising their CURRENT rights to access the courts.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 08:50 AM