Health care for all
It is time that all citizens of this country have universal health care (not universal health insurance). Let’s acknowledge that other developed nations have already achieved this, with much better results than are produced by our private, patchwork “system.”
Congress should pass HR 676 extending Medicare to all.
And voters should know the only reason elected representatives wouldn’t pass HR 676 is because the representatives are responsive to the insurance lobby rather than to the voters.
John Broadwater, Boulder
Many of the so called "countries" you refer to have long lines waiting for care. Many of their citizens flock here to get care.
There NEVER has been, no will there ever be ANY politcal system that can provide unlimited health care for it`s citizens.
Total calaps of our health system would be the result. we will be standing in lines to get asprin. I can do without that!
I can do without that.
Posted by rmpicksisme on July 12, 2007 03:19 AMMany of the so called "countries" you refer to have long lines waiting for care. Many of their citizens flock here to get care.
There NEVER has been, no will there ever be ANY politcal system that can provide unlimited health care for it`s citizens.
Total calaps of our health system would be the result. we will be standing in lines to get asprin. I can do without that!
I can do without that.
Posted by rmpicksisme on July 12, 2007 03:19 AMCongress refuses to act on both health coverage & Social Security (which is used as a 'piggy bank' for other government expenditures) because they don't need them. They have voted themselves a gold standard of health care (even after retirement) & retirement pay. If it were mandated that Congress have the same benefits as the average US voter (as opposed to the average US CEO), both broken systems would be fixed.
As far as the constant canard that those countries which have universal health care "have long lines waiting for care. Many of their citizens flock here to get care." - how many US citizens cross the border into Canada or Mexico for both affordable BASIC health care & prescription medications? There are "long lines waiting for care" here too - and only money or 'gold standard health care' shortens the line (or why would Mickey Mantle, an alcoholic, have been able to 'jump the line' for a liver transplant).
rmpicksisme must CURRENTLY have a great health plan - but what happens when that person retires or is laid off & has to choose between food, rent, heat & basic health care? Will rmpicksisme change his/her tune?
Posted by Mary on July 12, 2007 05:41 AMFree! Free! Free! Free health care for all. Let's make doctors work for minimum wage. And if they dont like it we will punish them like the socialist/communist leaders of the last century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). As we march toward socialism remember that free speech and disent are highly frowned upon. John, its not free. If you want to sooth your conscience, dontate to any free clinic or hospital you like. As pertains to socialized medicine I have a question: Why are there no Spina Bifida babies in socialist France? Answer that one John and you will be better informed.
Posted by Tom on July 12, 2007 07:19 AM"rmpicksisme must CURRENTLY have a great health plan - but what happens when that person retires or is laid off & has to choose between food, rent, heat & basic health care? Will rmpicksisme change his/her tune?"
Why is this particular idea always brought up by the free government handout crowd? I hope you realize that some of us "poor" uninsured folks aren't in favor of universal health care because nothing is free and our taxes are already substantial enough. I haven't had insurance in about 20 years, even though I could certainly afford it, yet this doesn't cause me to lose any sleep at night. While in my twenties I started to save a portion of the total sum of any income I received in a bank account that has become my catastrophe fund. Over the years it has grown enough that I believe it could cover most of the potential health hazards I might be exposed to. I know the idea of personal responsibility is scary to those individuals out there who never quite got past the stage of leaving the nest and the safety net of their parents arms behind, and so we continuously get to hear about these unrealistic handout programs that would turn the government into a surrogate mommy. Have any of you pro-free health care people bothered to look up the standard of care for serious chronic or terminal patients in a place like the UK or France? It's not pretty.
Posted by on July 12, 2007 07:49 AMWe pay by far the most for health care of any industrialized country and we get the worst results in almost every measurable category. But at least we don't have that dreaded "socialized medicine." Try to explain that to someone without coverage who needs health care and can't afford it. I'm sure that will be very comforting.
Posted by Docjay on July 12, 2007 08:00 AMYep, and I want to pay for the 300 lb. slob that eats at McD's everyday and smokes a few packs a week.
In Australia (with FREE health care) the citizens pay 2% of their wages for health care.
So you see, nothing in life is really "free".
Why should the 85% of Americans who have health care pay for the 15% who don't?
A lot of un-insured who do not have coverage are doing it by CHOICE, since they are young, healthy, and would rather have the addl. take-home pay so they can get Starbucks every morning and put gas in the SUV. Oh, and those cell phone charges really add up!
Posted by DrDan on July 12, 2007 08:04 AM85% of the country that has health insurance now has to pay for the 15% that doesn't ? Nah.
We have minimal if any enforcement of immigration law, and minimal, if any control over our borders and ports from illegal immigration. Why would we even entertain socialized medicine?
Posted by Ben on July 12, 2007 08:09 AM"We pay by far the most for health care of any industrialized country and we get the worst results in almost every measurable category."
Hmm, what does the World Health Organization have to say about this in regards to the United States and several of the most commonly cited socialized health care systems that get such "wonderful" results?
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$):
United States 2724.7
United Kingdom 2501.8
France 3040.1
Sweden 2999.8
Norway 4512.1
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
Yep, we definitely spend "by far the most". Is it safe to assume that the Doc is just something you add to your name, I have a hard time believing that you could get an a doctorate with such shoddy research skills.
Why not live a healthy life-style and avoid going to the doctor...reduce their demand, end government involvement, and their prices will go down.
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 08:40 AMCancer doesn't care how much of "healthly lifestyle" you lead. Neither does kidney disease or heart disease or diabetes. Infectious diseases of all kinds (West Nile, the flu...) could care less about your lifestyle.
Sure, you can mitigate the risk factors, but you can't guarantee you won't be affected by a devistating disease--no matter how healthy you think you are.
Do you really think you have enough money saved up to pay for a kidney transplant by yourself? Or a 5 way CAB? Or for when that idiot driver plows into you and you're in a coma for 6 months and then have to rehabilitate? Dream on...
Posted by on July 12, 2007 09:18 AMMany contributors to this discussion say they don't want to pay for the medical exspenses of others. The fact is: they already pay for tthose who don't have insurance. So, go ahead and dole out your money to the insurance companies, lose out on that pay raise or bonus, scrimp and save on your own and pray you don't get really sick. It doesn't change the fact that through pemiums, taxes or savings you still pay the bill. The cost of private insurance and who decides what gets covered is a big issue. The only thing health insurance guarantees is a profit for the insurance providers.
Posted by Stan B on July 12, 2007 09:18 AMDr. Dan claims, "In Australia (with FREE health care) the citizens pay 2% of their wages for health care."
Well, in America a family of four can pay up to 20% of their income for health insurance.
Wow, maybe Australia knows something we don't.
Face the fact that when it comes to health care Americans pay more and get less than in any other country.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 12, 2007 09:19 AM8:40 is playing fast and loose with the statistics.
The values represented are per capita government expenditures, and are from 2004.
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2724.7 (2004)
Per capita government expenditure on health at international dollar rate ? 2724.7 (2004)
What is your point flimflam? Look up the "Per capita government expenditure on health at international dollar rate" of those same countries, feel free to post it if you like, it doesn't change the numbers very much.
Posted by on July 12, 2007 09:40 AMWhy don't you tell the truth, 8:40 and 9:40?
You're using the per capita gov't expenditure. The reason the US numbers are lower is because we pay more out of pocket than those other countries, genius.
Why didnt you include the per capita total expenditure on health care?
US $6096.20
UK $2899
France $3464
Sweden $3532
Norway $5404
So that pretty much shows that we pay more per capita and get way less.
Total out of pocket expenses would be the difference between the per capita total and the per capita gov't expenditure. LEts look at those numbers, shall we?
US $3372
UK $398
France $424
Sweden $533
Norway $892
So we spend, on average, about 10 times out-of-pocket more than those damn socalists.
its odd that you totally obfuscate the facts to try to make your point. Why don't you just tell the truth?
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 10:00 AMStan You state "The only thing health insurance guarantees is a profit for the insurance providers. " So what are the Non Profit Healthcare Insurance providers in it for? What profit guarantees are there for them? Now lets compare for-profit HC insurance companies and their premium costs compared to non-profit premium costs.
It is fruitless to ONLY compare per capita costs between countries without also comparing the reasons for those costs. Some may be attributed to "Greedy" companies
Some to Social differences - drugs -violence - cancer rates -
Some to differences in pay
Some to ineffecient Admin policies and procedures. - unneeded overhead, govt inefficiencies, labor pay, labor unions, legal costs, etc
Another missing cost is that of the restructure of the entire process. Not only the costs but the impact to patient care during this time.
This is not to say the answer may not be a universal healthcare system but we should look at our root causes for this problem.
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 10:12 AMWhat we are doing now is workin' just great.
Posted by Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry on July 12, 2007 10:16 AMbwr - I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a non-profit business is.
Just because a business is labelled non-profit does NOT mean that it does not make profit. It just means that they have to spend their profits in certain ways, from what I understand. My fiance has worked for a non-profit for 7 years now, and she's told me a bit about the legal ins-and-outs of the non-profit world.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 10:20 AMWhy should the 85% of Americans who have health care pay for the 15% who don't?
A lot of un-insured who do not have coverage are doing it by CHOICE, since they are young, healthy, and would rather have the addl. take-home pay so they can get Starbucks every morning and put gas in the SUV. Oh, and those cell phone charges really add up!
Posted by DrDan on July 12, 2007 08:04 AM
Regarding your first statement, "Dr" Dan..
First of all, your numbers are wrong. The percentage of uninsured is much higher.
Second of all, those of us who do have insurance, myself included, ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO HAVE HEALTH COVERAGE!
Or haven't you noticed that the cost of your benefits rises every year through higher co-pays and greater deductions while getting less and less coverage.
It's also why hospital costs are out of control! Why do you think it costs $5 for a single Tylenol when you're in the hospital?
That's the health care industry passing along the cost of treating people who don't have health coverage along to those of us who do.
The reason why countries like Australia have lower health care costs is because people there have a completely different mindset. I know. I lived there for 5 years.
People there get preventative care. They get check-ups, mammograms, prostate exams, etc. They don't wait until they are sick to go to the doctor.
Yes, they pay for basic health care coverage through their taxes but they also have the option to purchase additional coverage through their employer or on their own so that they can go to doctors or hospitals of their own choice who aren't part of the government health care system. Their tax-funded health coverage still contributes to paying the bill, but their optional insurance covers anything above that.
The result is that their overall health care costs are much less. It's a lot cheaper to prevent illnesses than it is treat them.
This doesn't even take into account other factors. Australians are sick less because they get preventative treatments and a result they miss less work than Americans. They get preventative treatment and are less likely to die early and leave behind a family that can't make ends meet.
Regarding your second statement about people making a choice to not have health coverage....
What about the milions of Americans who don't have a choice?
Get with it. You are paying for their health care! They still get treated but they wait until they're sick and then they go the emergency room or an urgent care clinic where the costs are much higher.
If their job doesn't offer and they can't afford to buy health insurance for a couple hundred dollars a months, what makes you think they can afford to pay the thousands of dollars they run up trying to get well?
You're paying for their inability to pay!
The way to make them pay for their share to offer health care coverage to all through..yes, god, forbid, taxes...
But the ends justify the means.
We can lower health care costs for everyone by making sure that every American has coverage so that they will get preventative care rather than waiting until they are sick!
Posted by on July 12, 2007 09:18 AM
my point was to reduce costs through lowering demand, certainly cancer is a reason to go to the doctor, but things like a cold or runny nose are not. People go to doctor visits for the smallest maladies and things that can be prevented or taken care of without the need to go to the doctor office.
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 10:26 AMPosted by Stan B on July 12, 2007 09:18 AM
Good point, the subsidized insurance companies are reaming us all through the health-insurance plans, and we are certainly paying for much more than our own health care when we pay an insurance company...
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 10:29 AMThat is something that infuriates me about people who rant about people in Canada having to wait a long time for appointments or wait in long lines, etc to see their doctors.
Have you been to a Kaiser facility lately?
Trust me...Canadians, et al, have it much better.
But more importantly, these people love to leave out the little fact that Canadians et al, have the option to purchase additional coverage so they can go to doctors and hospitals outside of the government system.
They are still able to have their tax covered heath care be applied to their bill, and their purchased optional insurance covers anything else.
I know lots of Canadians and the ones who bitch about their health care will all too quickly admit that they would much rather have what they have than nothing at all. They know they have choices to "upgrade" their coverage but they either can't or won't pay for
it.
The point is that people will bitch regardless. But I don't know a single Canadian who would go to our system. They would much rather have long waits to see their doctor than have the high costs that we have.
Tbone,
I apologize for using the wrong numbers. My mistake, cut and paste error. But don't try and act like you aren't "obfuscating" things as well. Joe Average America doesn't receive a check for $2724.1from the government to help pay for their health, that money is being spent on programs like Medicare to pay for the health care of a minority. Just look at how much medicare costs each year
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3982&type=0
On the other side of the coin Joe Average UK/France/wherever doesn't have the private funds added to his health care that some wealthier individuals in those nations choose to pay for. As a correction for my earlier post, I propose to post the numbers for the US total per capita - government spending per capita, and the numbers for social medicine countries when only government per capita spending is considered. You might not consider income taxes as an out of pocket expense, but a lot of people do.
US 3372.1
UK 2501.8
France 2714.6
Sweden 2999.8
Norway 4512.1
Hardly a 1000% difference.
Posted by on July 12, 2007 10:42 AMLiberals know that universal health care is not "free". We do not equate the words free=universal and I would love it if conservatives would figure this out on their own without someone constantly having to re-educate them.
The Amish live a clearly superior life as far as health care goes, they now have genetic diseases from inbreeding.
A young healthy person can have a stroke, develop MRSA, need heart surgery for a genetic condition etc. How superior to be healthy in America and credit yourself while blaming ill persons for their problems.
We have low cost or free programs, but people must remain below a certain income level, and not better their lives, to qualify. See article in this mornings RMN.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 10:42 AMLiberals do think that it would be free health care Sharon B and yes they think they are entitled also. They don't seem to have a problem with taxes being high. I have relatives in Canada and a very close friend in England and Kaiser ( I have Kaiser coverage) isn't near the wait according to what I hear from them. Also governement run health care can make the choice to treat or not treat people they think aren't living by the rules (not smoking, too fat etc) That is just totally wrong!!! Everybody should have the right for the best possible care no matter what. France and England are having major financial problems in part because of the socialist medicine. Look at how the veteran's hospitals are run in the US and then tell me the government can run a decent medical system. Liberals are destroying this country. Mark my words!!!!!
Posted by on July 12, 2007 10:58 AM"those of us who do have insurance, myself included, ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO HAVE HEALTH COVERAGE!"
I love this logic, you're already getting buggered by leeches, so we might as well make it officially acceptable for them to have their bills paid by everyone else.
"I know lots of Canadians and the ones who bitch about their health care will all too quickly admit that they would much rather have what they have than nothing at all. They know they have choices to "upgrade" their coverage but they either can't or won't pay for
it.
The point is that people will bitch regardless. But I don't know a single Canadian who would go to our system. They would much rather have long waits to see their doctor than have the high costs that we have. "
So I guess you've personally met every Canadian, right? My best friend is from London, Ontario and he certainly wouldn't agree with your glib assessment of their healthcare system, but I guess watching your mother die of chronic myelogenous leukemia while being told that there isn't enough money to be rationed for treatment might have something to do with it. Yes, their is additional treatment available, but the trick to that is paying extra out of pocket, which can be hard to do living on a fixed, retired income while giving the money that should pay for treatment to the government so that bureaucratic geniuses can choose what medicine should be available to you. I would imagine that Parkinson's or schizophrenic patients in Britain feel the same way when they find out that the only treatment that the dole will give them is a dangerous drug from a couple of decades ago, but hey, at least college students in those countries can show up at the doctor's office the day after a questionable bar liason and find out if the itch in their crotch is VD or just lack of a shower, all covered for by John Q. Taxpayer. You should look into the Canadian system, there is still quite a bit of controversy, its not as honky-dory as you make it sound.
Posted by on July 12, 2007 11:06 AMTBone I do understand what the differences between profit and non profit status. In the concept of this discussion and the "Greedy" profit drivne companies and the profit margin they have compared to non profit organizations within same industry.
Also where do you get that the Canadian healthcare is better? From the information I get from my family and friends that are Canadian citizens, I would disagree with you
Again what does the comparison of costs per capita have to do with anything if you dont compare the components of those costs? Some of those components are financial based and some are Socially based.
Tbone just trying to get a frame of mind from you on what you define as Socialized medicine within the discussion.
Are you looking for something similar to Canada that has the Admin side covered by govt and the Patient care side as private enterprise? or are you looking for an all inclusive HC system. ie govt control of admin and patient care components?
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 11:31 AMBut heck with the #s, heck with the social components, and definately to Hell with root cause analysis processes. Give me partisan BS anyday. Lawyers and politicians need us and dammit we are giving them exactly what they desire
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 11:39 AMHealth care in the United States averages to a little over $6,000 for every person. In state run systems it averages to about $3,300. If we went to a state run system and were somehow magically able to reduce our cost to $4,000 per person that would mean that we would have to raise about 1.2 trillion dollars in tax money to pay for it! Currently with our tax system/Social Security we raise about 2.5 trillion dollars. That would mean that we would have to raise taxes by almost 50% and that's only if we were able to reduce the overall cost. I doubt we would because if health care were to become "free" I would imagine abuses galore with everyone running to the ER for every cough and headache. I don't think it's governments job to pay for stuff for Americans which is what would happen if we went to a "national healthcare" system
Posted by Dleef on July 12, 2007 12:03 PMThe problem is that people who have insurance pay out (500/month for me) and get claims denied because of the profit motive. Two of my children and myself - a widowed mother of 3 - are very healthy. My third child has Type 1 juvenile diabetes and don't anyone confuse it with Type 2. Her body destroys the beta cells. i pay about 700 per month (including insurance) for her care. My mortgage is 1100. I have to fight the insurance companies for certain coverages. What will happen to her as an adult? I used to believe in the free market buy not for some things. Nebraska is the only state that has public power (check it out Xcel)...it is called NPPD (nebraska public power district). How would you free marketers help my daughter who health is jeopardized through no fault of her own...or what about the children with cancer...pull the plug on them if their parents cannot afford medical care?????
Posted by cheryl on July 12, 2007 12:22 PMDoes anyone think that the size of the US has anything to do with the impossibility of socialized medicine? Let's take a look at population figures shall we?
France:
Estimated 2007 pop: 21.167 Million
Great Britain:
60.777 Million
Canada:
33.4 Million
Australia:
20.434 Million
Now, just look at some STATES in the US:
New York:
estimated 2006 pop: 19.3 Million
Texas:
23.51 Million
California:
36.5 Million
As you can clearly see, just the state of California has a greater population than all the other COUNTRIES besides Great Britain. All those other countries COMBINED, are a third of the total US population in 2006 estimates to be 301.14 Million.
As this figures should demonstrate, the simple logistics of assuring health care for 301 Million people is a HUGE undertaking. One that I feel we should attempt, but do you see the real hesitation? I believe we should have a national health standard, but I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure the public.
I make this very selfish remark, but one I think is appropriate. I most certainly do not want to pay for some over-weight, cigarette smoking, drug addicted, drunk who gets to take full ADVANTAGE of not having to pay for his own "sins" while I maintain and live a healthy lifestyle. If we really do believe in personal responsibility (which maybe we don't anymore), I don't know how socialized medicine is equatable and fair. I do think that health insurance should not be tied to an employer, but transportable and I would like to see some system of a safety net, but until we stop being the most obese and unhealthy nation, I am certainly not going to pay for the grossness of those that don't care to take care of themselves.
Posted by Dan2 on July 12, 2007 12:49 PMThere are numerous accounts of people in Canada who have had heart attacks and while waiting months for an MRI, DIE!!!!
Is that what you want here?
OH MY GOD, PEOPLE IN CANADA WHO HAD HEART ATTACKS ARE DYING!
Posted by flimflam on July 12, 2007 01:05 PMbwr-
I never said anything about Canada.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 01:09 PMHmmm...funny....there are also people in america that die of heart attacks because they don't have insurance and can't even see an doctor to get an MRI. Probably more people than canada, even.
So we definately shouldn't change our system, then, because people in canada also die.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 01:14 PMHmmm...funny....there are also people in america that die of heart attacks because they don't have insurance and can't even see an doctor to get an MRI. Probably more people than canada, even.
So we definately shouldn't change our system, then, because people in canada also die.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 01:16 PMTbone Sorry I mixed you up with Thomas on that specific response. My apologies.
I am still however interested in your view of a national healthcare plan.
My question:
"Are you looking for something similar to Canada that has the Admin side covered by govt and the Patient care side as private enterprise? or are you looking for an all inclusive HC system. ie govt control of admin and patient care components?"
In a free market society, how do we control costs and quality of goods and services?
Typically this is done through customer leverage and the competition for that customer through pricing, and services delivered.
For those that have healthcare coverage, how is this administered and who is the "customer" for a healthcare insurance company?
Through our employer for most. Who is the customer? The employer! Why is this set up this way.
Our tax codes for 1
An individuals can recieve tax breaks for purchasing health insuranc only when purchased through the employer. This 1 fact has helped create an employer based health insurance system. The individual has much more in the way of leverage than an employer does if allowed to purchase their health insurance directly, instead of giving that to the employer. This creates more competition for pricing and services rendered.
Who has the ability to change this? The govt, who helped create this in the first place.
1 piece in a very large puzzle
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 02:14 PMAnother point as far as costs.
Government mandates that are instituted annually. How much do healthcare insurance companies and Patient Care providers spend of their capital investment yearly on govt mandates? Many many millions per year. Will this change with a Universal Healthplan? No, especially using a model such as Canada and France. Those costs will need to be absorbed within Govt costs along with the Privatized Patient Care arena. All leading to higher costs to customers and tax payers.
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 02:24 PMJust because the current health-care system is the US is bad doesn't mean that socialized health-care is good. They aren't the only 2 choices as many seem to believe...
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 03:10 PMWhy should the 85% of Americans who have health care pay for the 15% who don't?
Why should someone who rarely gets sick pay the same high insurance premium as someone who is chronically ill? That's how our current privatized system works.
Should you ever lose your job - along with your insurance -and become one of those 15 percenters yourself, you might just appreciate such a system.
Posted by mytwosense on July 12, 2007 03:59 PMMytwosense, You are assuming that the Privatized system needs to stay the same rather than change and adapt to work for our citizens. You are assuming that the only way to fix is to Socialize it. How about we look at the true root causes and look at the solutions from there. It may be Socialized medicine. I am not convinced. I also see costs associated with Socialization at any level that will bring total cost well above our dreams or nightmares.
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 04:07 PMWelcome back mytwosense. Or were you posting under a different name?
Should you ever lose your job - along with your insurance -and become one of those 15 percenters yourself, you might just appreciate such a system."
Would you support eliminating tax incentives for corporations to offer health insurance to it's employees?
Posted by John II on July 12, 2007 04:15 PMThomas:
First of all, your numbers are wrong. The percentage of uninsured is much higher."
Those numbers are pretty accurate Thomas. A 300 million population divided by 45 million uninsured is 15%.
Another common complaint here is that we spend way more than socialized medicine countries and get much worse care. Does anyone have anything to back up that assertion? If you look at the quality of care in these other countries you might find out why they can get away with paying so little.
My recent surgery required a fair amount of pain meds throughout my stay (yeah, it was cool man). My worry was the additional cost. To my surprise the procedure cost included unlimited meds during my stay so the earlier claim of having to pay $10 for a tylenol in ER just doesn't ring true. Maybe do some more shopping before deciding what insurance to buy and where you seek a Dr.
John II has a put a good question up on this before. If we have only 15% uninsured and some think that's too high, what's an acceptable % to have?
If we can reduce it by 5% or 10% would that be satisfactory? There's no way your going to eliminate uninsured, the same as you can't eliminate unemployement. But to reduce it a small % doesn't require a complete rebuild into a socialized system.
How about setting up more assistence for those who truly need it and let the rest of us seek our own forms of insurance.
Any system requiring mandated participation (and payment) will never pass in this supposedly free country.
Posted by KW on July 12, 2007 05:03 PMKW--
"Another common complaint here is that we spend way more than socialized medicine countries and get much worse care. Does anyone have anything to back up that assertion? If you look at the quality of care in these other countries you might find out why they can get away with paying so little"
Have you been paying attention at all? Let me review. We rank 36th in health care, according to the WHO, while spending the most. As far as quality of care - the french have longer lives, while smoking, drinking, and eating more. I think that should attest to their quality of care, all while paying less. Not to mention they have lower infant mortality rates, among other things.
As far as an acceptable number of uninsured - 100% uninsured would be optimal. Why can't some righties seem to grasp the fact that INSURANCE IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION! Its very simple. We get rid of insurance, our costs go down. 30% of every health care dollar in this country goes to insurance company administration. Insurance is just another middleman taking their cut.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 05:43 PMKW do not forget that a portion of the uninsured are uninsured of their own choosing. Some are considered low risk(young, healthy) some are in transition between jobs that carry employee insurance, some choose to "pay as you go". There are those that are in definate need (dont fit medicare or medicaid reqmts) That number is less than the estimated 45M uninsured.
BTW hope surgery went well and the drugs were good "trips" and not bad ones.
If the laws change so that we can become an individual based insured group rather than employer based, I think we have a better chance of having true competition and better patient care for the citizens.
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 05:50 PMTbone please explain how govt handling the issue helps eliminate the middleman? Also how much of that 30% of admin is due to Govt costs?
Yes we rank lower than other countries in care. Why is that? Could it be our social makeup (drugs, violence, etc) could it be the fact that our Cancer rate is higher than others? This has many social ramifications and reasoning beyond just our habits and personal ability to manage our own health. Do the statistics take that into account? No they do not. They are referenced in many articles and white pages throughout the web. When comparing Per Capita costs, Health ratings, etc between countries, we are not comparing apples to apples.
Also again what do you see for a National healthcare plan?
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 06:03 PMTbone someone has to manage the healthcare organization. Be it Govt (Socialized healthcare), Insurance Co's or Self Funded Members(companies that administer own benefits and risks) It all costs. If we dont have oversight and management of the healthcare, does that not open the doors for billing anything from the Patient care side? Or are you for Socializing the Patient care side also?
Posted by bwr on July 12, 2007 06:08 PMThe simple fact is that if the universal health care nations spent 75% as much as we do for health care, they would provide as good a health care for all of their citizens as we do for only some of ours. If they spent as much as we do, they would clearly have the greatest health care mankind has ever known. There is no reason why the United States could not also by changing to their system.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 06:59 PMThe foregoing post by me is simply wrong.
I said that the universal health care nations could provide as good a health care as we do. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, they already provide better health care than we provide at half the cost, and they cover everybody.
Sorry about that.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 07:03 PMbwr,
You said:
"Tbone please explain how govt handling the issue helps eliminate the middleman? "
Of course, we know it doesn't eliminate the middleman, it simply eliminates a middleman.
As far as the supposed cost savings, Tbone and mytwosense will argue that since a government-run single payer system eliminates marketing and CEO costs.
That's technically true. We won't see many annoying Aflack commercials. And executive pay will probably be sharply reduced.
It's a silly argument when you think about. A similar argument could be made to persuade people to switch from cars to horses for primary transportation: Do you have any idea how much money you could save by not having to pay for gas?
Well, that's true. You can eliminate the cost of gas by switching to a horse instead of a car. But, what about administering all the details of horse ownership? You now have to feed it, shelter it, train it, and pay for it's vet bills. In addition to all that, you don't get to your destination as quickly as you would by car; so you need to spend more hours of your life commuting.
Yes, insurance companies spend money on marketing and executive costs. But, those costs are nothing compared to the increased costs of a massive governmental department, not to mention the lost efficiencies of a competitive market.
Our health care system needs fixing. We can eliminate tax incentives for employers that provide health insurance for their employees. This will allow new non-employer based insurance pools to spring up. Americans will then be able to keep their insurance policies even when they switch jobs.
There are many tweaks to our system we can make that do not involve massive government control. As KW mentioned, if 15% uninsured is too high, what's an acceptable level? Also, remember that even though we have a low 4.5% unemployment rate, that doesn't represent the same 4.5% each year. The same goes for the uninsured. The 15% who were uninsured last year are not necessarily the same people who are uninsured today.
Posted by John II on July 12, 2007 07:24 PMTbone said:
"Let me review. We rank 36th in health care, according to the WHO, while spending the most."
This is either a lie or unintentional misrepresentation of data by Tbone.
I just finished instructing Truth about this.
This ranking is a valid, mostly objective ranking. But, it is not what some will have you believe.
What Tbone probably doesn't know, and Truth didn't know, are the actual measurement of WHO's ranking.
I invite anyone interested to read the last half of this thread to see the full debate Truth and I had on this about this study.
For those not interested in reading the thread, here's a quick review.
The WHO ranking that Tbone and Truth wave around has the following measurements:
"infant mortality, infectious disease, prevalence of smoking, cardiovascular deaths, motor vehicle deaths, violent crime, children in poverty, occupational fatalities,immunization coverage, prenatal care, prevalence of obesity, and the rate of uninsured population."
It doesn't take a genius to look at those measurements and see how different cultures can score higher and lower with such measurements.
Here's a list of some of the countries that scored higher than us and their populations:
"Cyprus - 800k San Marino - 29k Malta - 400k Monaco - 32k Andorra - 71k Luxemborg - 480k Oman - 3 mWe could fit the population of some of those countries in Coor's Field.
Most of the countries that scored higher than the US on that list fall into one of three categories:
1) Major industry is tourism
2) Either an island with a very pleasant climate or close to the ocean
3) The population is about as diverse as the NBA"
The WHO ranking measures the consequences of our lifestyles, not our health care systems.
Here's a challenge that Truth could not answer:
"I haven't seen any country that tops us on that list that has a population close to 300,000,000 people. If you feel America has a poor health care system, show me a country with a similar population size, diversity, economic opportunity, personal freedom, and military might that has a better system."
Anyone else care to accept the challenge?
Posted by John II on July 12, 2007 07:41 PMThe World Health Organization ranks thirty-seven nations ahead of the United States. That's a lot of nations. Some of them are small and some are large. The large ones have a tremendous advantage over the small ones because of the economy of scale. There are some who point to the small ones and say the rankings are distorted. They ignore the large ones.
There are some people who refuse to accept the truism that it is less expensive per person to provide health care for a large population than for a small one. A ten million dollar hospital to serve five million people costs two bucks per person. If it serves twice that many people, it is one buck person.
So it is clear that the few people who argue that largeness is an impediment to providing good health care simply are being ridiculous. But that's about all they can hang their hats on to try to dispute the clear and obvious import of the WHO study.
Once again, the size of the United States gives it an enormous advantage in providing health care. It takes a very large number of people to support a top notch hospital. It takes a very large number of people to support an extensive research program. It takes a very large number of people to support the specialists that we need in order to have a top notch system.
Once again, we pay twice as much for our health care as to most universal health care nations.
Once again, what do you think would happen to our health care system if we suddenly cut the funds in half?
These simple facts need to be repeated over and over till even the dullest mind starts to comprehend them.
John II mentions ""Cyprus - 800k San Marino - 29k Malta - 400k Monaco - 32k Andorra - 71k Luxemborg - 480k Oman - 3 m"
Where would you rather build a multimillion dollar medical complex, in a place with 29,000 or 800,000 people or in a place like New York, or Los Angeles or Dallas or Denver or Chicago or, well, you get the idea?
John doesn't think we can compare health care systems. He should tell that to the people who oppose universal health care because all of them spin their wheels criticizing. What they avoid doing like the plague is taking into consideration the fact that we spend twice as much. Get that: twice as much. Since we are talking in the trillions of dollars, that's not just small change.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 08:06 PM
Truth,
You said:
"There are some people who refuse to accept the truism that it is less expensive per person to provide health care for a large population than for a small one. A ten million dollar hospital to serve five million people costs two bucks per person. If it serves twice that many people, it is one buck person."
Disregarding your economic assumptions, the WHO study you and Tbone referenced does not address economics. It addresses culture and lifestyle.
Just as I've told you in the previous thread, we can examine America with the same precision as the population of Malta and find extremely good health care. For example, people in San Diego live healthier than people in Newark,New Jersey.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out to you (apparently it takes several reiterations before you acknowledge valid points), is that there is a cost for everything. France topped the WHO list. France also has an unemployment rate of 9%-10%. That is double our own unemployment rate. Last year, the French rioted in the streets because of a lack of economic opportunity, despite the fact that they have "free" health care.
Truth mentions multi-million dollar medical complexes yet refuses to acknowledge that the WHO study does not measure medical complexes, it merely measures the consequences of of our lifestyles.
Posted by John II on July 12, 2007 08:25 PMJohn II, who make up the 9-10% unemployed in France? You say the French rioted, but it was the Muslim population of younger people who have been shut out of jobs and education in french society I think. The French don`t consider these people "French".
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 08:52 PMSharon B.,
I purposely did not point out the religion of those who rioted out of fear of being accused a bigot.
But, your point is valid. If we ignore culture, we can use numbers and events to suit our purposes.
For example, we could ignore black violence (or male violence) in America and determine that America is a very low crime nation.
Of course, that would misrepresent our culture. Knowing this, how can we compare our culture to Sweden's culture without acknowledging extreme cultural differences.
Now, since that WHO study examines cultural factors, we must not misrepresent the study to say it somehow favors one health care system over another. It simply measures our lifestyles. I keep pointing out the populations of the various countries because the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results. Some of those countries that scored higher than us can fit into Coor's Field and still leave the good seats for us. France has a population of 20-30 million people compared to our 300,000,000. Do we compare companies like GM to local mechanics? Of course not. GM may produce more, but they also have inefficiencies far larger than the local mechanic. That is why financial experts separate companies according to their size.
France may or may not have a better health care system than our own, but that WHO study does not prove it one way or another.
Posted by John II on July 12, 2007 09:11 PMJohn II, I`m trying to find information on China and other large (300,000) people or more countries.
Americans have started going to Indonesia for heart valve operations etc.
People from Colorado go to Mexico for dental work and eye glasses, also for cheaper prescriptions.
You are right the French rioted over lack of opportunity, but not because they have free health care. Please don`t lump these two disparate things together.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 13, 2007 10:39 AMSharon B.,
"You are right the French rioted over lack of opportunity, but not because they have free health care. Please don`t lump these two disparate things together."
I didn't say they rioted over free health care. But, economic opportunity is linked to universal health care. If you raise the tax rates to pay for it, you hurt job growth. How many riots have there been in America over our health care system?
"Americans have started going to Indonesia for heart valve operations etc."
Really, Sharon B.? How many?
"People from Colorado go to Mexico for dental work and eye glasses, also for cheaper prescriptions."
People from Colorado do a lot of things. What's your point?
You have the right idea in trying to compare America to larger countries. Remember though, we need to also take into account economic opportunity and personal freedom.
Because the French system is being brought up, approx 80% of French have to buy private healthcare on their own.
Mexico is a privatized system
JohnII
It is only OK to compare countries when it benefits Socialized healthcare
For Example:
It is ok to compare costs between countries (cost per capita) because it shows that we spend more on healthcare than other countries. It does NOT tell us that the components of those costs are very different and therefore are of little value because of those component differences without the analysis to bring to comparible comparisons.
It is not OK for you to compare sizes of the countries as this rendors their numbers invalid. I truly believe that they have a point and other components need to be added to make #s more valuable. HOWEVER your points and observations look pretty good.
Cultural factors need to be brought into the mix as you state. I have asked others to look at this without success. Hope you have better luck. Cultural factors can greatly affect Costs and success BUT at same time will not be fixed with a Socialized healthcare system.
Thanks for your posts and enjoy your Friday
Posted by bwr on July 13, 2007 12:27 PMI would gladly pay 2% of my income to health care for coverage. As it stands now being self employed my insurance coverage would be about 30% of my income, that is just for the insurance, on top of that I would have to pay 50% of the lab work and % of hospital and emergency visits which would be more than 30% of my income. However I can't get insurance because of too many pre existing conditions for my wife and son. Nobody addresses this issue, many people can't get insurance because they actually need it or would use it. That means $ out of the insurance company and the CEO may not get his $22 million bonus. Someone posted about people in Canada getting turned away for coverage because of lifestyle or too fat. The insurance companies have teams of people dedicated to rejecting prospective people and declining coverages and tests that may be expensive. People are rejected everyday for coverage here. It really never bothers those people against Universal health care that the CEO's and insurance companies are making record breaking profits. We need a big change and now. If we spent half the money in Iraq on health care here we could cover everybody!!!!
Posted by Michael D on July 13, 2007 01:35 PMMichael I will ask same question I asked in other thread:
Michael D who is saying that our HC system does not need fixed? Who?
Yours and many other letters prove that we are a throw away society. Don't bother looking at problem and evaluating to fix or replace. Just Throw it out and get something new. Never mind the costs and the new GAPS created.
What is your suggestions?
Posted by bwr on July 13, 2007 01:49 PMbwr said:
"...approx 80% of French have to buy private healthcare on their own."
They don't have to. They choose to.
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 04:33 PMThat's funny. Why do they choose to? Do they get a tax refund if they buy private health care instead? Or are they getting taxed twice?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 04:50 PMBy the way, is that figure correct? 80% of the French citizens buy private health care? What's the point of universal health care if 80% prefer private health care?
Posted by John II on July 13, 2007 06:17 PMCharles In my opinion f a low percentage was to buy extra insurance, I would more likely assume, but 80% is a high number and would tend to lead me down the path that they need to buy. I guess that is a difference in interpretation on our parts.
If it still seems too harsh and misrepresents the facts how is this?
"approx 80% of French purchase private healthcare on their own."
80% is a very high number especially when people are applauding the French Socialized medicine plan.
JohnII was listening to news and that was the number given in approx terms....... AND even Drew would approve of the sources (Not Fox or any of the ones Drew chastizes..................hacking on ya Drew.....Its Friday and havent given you crap in a week :-)
Posted by bwr on July 13, 2007 06:39 PMJohn,
Have you noticed that whenever you try to pin Charles down on one (of the many) stupid things he says, he doesn't answer? He runs away to another post where he asks one of his idiotic questions: "Why do you hate hard working people?, Why do you hate America?", etc...
Posted by Mike on July 14, 2007 08:32 AMYes, he's a very emotional guy. I think he's got a lot of anger in him. It seem like he's using this forum to vent rather than discuss.
Posted by John II on July 14, 2007 09:04 AMMike, John II - You mean I'm not the only one Charles B attacks with smart a** comments? (/sarcasm)
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 09:27 AMKW,
I just think you are his favorite target.
Posted by Mike on July 14, 2007 09:29 AMI feel so special, thanks!
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 09:32 AMNow you are talking.As aDemocrat I want free health care.A think a tax on the rich will work very well.Anyone that makes over $30,000 a year should get this special tax or a family that makes over $55,000.I can not wait to get my free health care. I need a hair transplant and liposuction.I would also like a Boob job and butt lift.
Posted by Bertha on July 15, 2007 10:15 AM