Giuliani’s plan hurts health care
I just read about Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani’s health care plan.
His plan is supposed to be a solution to the nation’s health care woes. However, Giuliani is putting the burden to buy health care on the poorest people.
Critical to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance instead of getting insurance through employers.
Do you think these people can afford to buy health insurance in the first place?
Giuliani said that as more people buy plans, insurers will drop their prices, making insurance affordable to those who lack it now.
His first wrong assumption is that the insurance industry is going to drop prices — anybody ever see that happen? His second wrong assumption is that private insurance is affordable to anybody besides himself.
The poor will have to wait until the insurance industry drops its prices to afford the insurance. Since employers will no longer be supplying insurance, this plan would add thousands to the uninsured list, deepening the health care crisis, not improving it.
Tod Gilmore, Parker
Absolutely correct analysis. This would just be another 'subsidize the wealthy' plan - think about it - assume Dick or Jane is making the munificent sum of $7.65/hour (which is above minimum wage) that person - before taxes, working 40 hours per week, with no vacation or holidays, makes $15,912 PER YEAR. Obviously this plan won't help them, any more than it will help the person making under at least $150,000/year before taxes. Please remember that this won't aid anyone trying to buy health insurance during the year - it will come of their taxable base when calculating taxes due for the prior year. Do you have an extra $15,000 to spend on health insurance (or anything else) this year?
If you don't think that health care insurers will RAISE their rates to take advantage of something like this, think again - after all
how about all of you socialist who want to supply insurance to everyone start smoking and drinking so you can pay the 'insurance for the kids' taxes that colorado wants.
why not take care of your own?
yes I do have an extra 15k but its my money that I worked hard to earn. now tell me why I should give it to you to take care of your family and ignore mine.
also mary if you are in a minimum wage job [and your dems just raised it to a living wage they said] you really should consider not having kids till you can afford them. its called being responsible and that is something you and your ilk dont know anything about because you can hold your hand out and say that the government owes it to you.
4:55, that is a correct analysis. 85% of people who have health insurance must pay for the 15% who do not. No way Jose. We still have a million or so illegal aliens entering our country yearly still, plus we have some of the most generous legal immigration laws, of which most who apply are thirdworlders with third world money earning capability.
Posted by Ben on August 2, 2007 06:19 AM4:55 and Ben are right on. These poor people are the dregs of society, i say kill them all, put them in prisons or sterilze them so they cant breed and that way the rest of us ( the master raceis wha i beleiev) can enjoy our money and the luxuries we have worked for or inherited. Well dont kill them all, we need a few for low labor.
to quote Scrooge ( or maybe it was Cheney?) " Do we no longer have the poor houuses? The work farms?"
Susidize the wealthy? Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not a subsidy. Unless of course you think all earning belong to the governement and we are only allowed what we need (e.g. Marxism).
"Do you think these people can afford to buy health insurance in the first place?"
Yes. I think "these people" will be able to afford many things if you allow "these people" to keep more of what they earn by lowering taxes. Eventually "these people" won't need your oversight at all.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 07:02 AMAdvice to James Jones-" drink the Kool Aid Jim" Many of 'these people" ( hope you didnt soil your hands talking about them) do not make enough money to even much in taxes, certainly not $15000 worth, yet, they work 40 hours a week on minimum wage. Again, where does theis $15K come from if your income is $20K or $25K
Posted by shaibug on August 2, 2007 07:26 AMPosted by on August 2, 2007 04:55 AM
"its called being responsible and that is something you and your ilk dont know anything about because you can hold your hand out and say that the government owes it to you."
I don't think Mary was arguing in her own interest as you imply, but rather in the interest of others less fortunate.
That's the difference between you and Mary. She appears to be selfless whereas you appear to be selfish.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 07:26 AMAdvice to James Jones-" drink the Kool Aid Jim" Many of 'these people" ( hope you didnt soil your hands talking about them) do not make enough money to even much in taxes, certainly not $15000 worth, yet, they work 40 hours a week on minimum wage. Again, where does theis $15K come from if your income is $20K or $25K
Posted by shaibug on August 2, 2007 07:27 AMThe rich & selfish ( James Jones and his ilk..Republicans in general) who are so against helping the poor or more unfortunate don’t realize is that it is their very attitude that makes communism and socialism attractive to many countries. Communism didn’t ‘take over’ Cuba or Russia, the poor & the peasants got tired of seeing a select few control all the riches while the peasants did all the work and lived in squalor. Without social programs that address the interests of the poor and show some compassion towards them, the day will come the masses in the US will unite and do the same. Without social programs the US is little different than the very countries we oppose. How is it Republicans are the ones who are so religious and are the ‘champions of christianity” and yet they miss the entire point of Jesus’ teachings-to show compassion and help those less fortunate them?
Posted by cjc on August 2, 2007 07:44 AMcjc
Communism is attractive because it offers seductive arguments as in the government playing Robin Hood, redistributing the wealth to create a more just society.
The only problem is that is doesn't work. Every country that adopts Marixist philosphies ends up being ruled by despots and living in desperate proverty. That is the history of the 20th century in Asia, Europe, South America and Africa.
Theocratic arguments are also the wrong approach. The notion that the government and religion msut be separate is a Christian tenet taught by a Jew (Parable of the Coin).
So it is one thing for the Pastor to intruct wealthy Peter to share with poor Paul. It is another thing entirely for the Pastor to sic the IRS on wealthy Peter.
You are not being charitable by voting your way into the pocket of your neighbors. The Good Samaritan after all spent his own money.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 08:43 AMTwo points to make...
1) You take away employer sponsored health plans and you end up with a ton of people who won't be able to get individual coverage due to the underwriting policies of the health carriers. Pre-existing condition restrictions, flat-out denials of coverage and the like.
2) To those of you "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you" deep thinkers--consider this...
Who do you think subsidizes the care that those without health coverage get? I'll give you a hint--it is built right in to those monthly premiums that you pay.
Now, ask yourself this--is it cheaper to provide routine, preventative care to everyone or pay for those ER visits when a preventable problem becomes a life threatening situation?
Here's another hint--a $100 office visit to a doctor or a $100,000 trip to the ER?
And, let's leave the illegal question out of this--not everyone who can't afford health insurance falls into the category.
Posted by My Two Cents on August 2, 2007 08:48 AMcjc
The socialists and communists have little or no interest in the value of people's lives. They have one goal, which by the way is the same goal as the Democrats. That goal is to get the majority of the people totally dependent on the government for their welfare. In this way no one would dare to vote against them, for fear of losing all of those benefits. The Free Market made this country great and not a bunch of "nanny state" programs.
Look at what Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, take everything from anyone who has worked hard and made some money and gives it to the "poor', of course him and his cronies take their share first. Is that what you want from this country?
Build safety nets for people who may have run into some difficult times, absolutely. But having programs where women get more money for having more children, than they can not afford is ridiculous, or having families refuse to work because their welfare benefits would be reduced, is criminal. Many of these "nanny state" benefits do nothing more than create a new generation of people that believe the government owes them a living. Free food, free housing, free education, and now free health care.
Here is a hot tip, those programs are not free, they come out of my budget and every other taxpayers budget. If you run into a temporary situation that you may need some help, I am more than willing to help, However if you choose to sit around on your lazy @ss or are in this country illegally, then count me out, you deserve NOTHING.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 08:52 AMHow is forcing people into dependence on the government for a substandard version of socialist medicine compassionate? The escalation in health care cost began when the government began interfering in the way businesses handle employees.
Wage controls during the second world war forced companies into offering "benefits packages" instead of salary and wage options to attract labor. As a result the mindset began to sink in that removed personal responsibility from paying for health care, and that "someone else" is responsible for paying for it. This is how insurance companies gained control of pricing. Now the government wants to get its hands in more and further damage the system.
Speaking of compassion, if the United States adopts a socialist health care system, where will Canadians go for there health care?
Wanting to keep what you earn instead of having the government steal it and give it to someone who did not earn it is not selfish. And you may wish to reread history: Communism doesn't work. Compare our "poor" to the real poor in the world, and you will realize just how good people have it in this nation.
Posted by Turth on August 2, 2007 08:53 AMHow is forcing people into dependence on the government for a substandard version of socialist medicine compassionate? The escalation in health care cost began when the government began interfering in the way businesses handle employees.
Wage controls during the second world war forced companies into offering "benefits packages" instead of salary and wage options to attract labor. As a result the mindset began to sink in that removed personal responsibility from paying for health care, and that "someone else" is responsible for paying for it. This is how insurance companies gained control of pricing. Now the government wants to get its hands in more and further damage the system.
Speaking of compassion, if the United States adopts a socialist health care system, where will Canadians go for there health care?
Wanting to keep what you earn instead of having the government steal it and give it to someone who did not earn it is not selfish. And you may wish to reread history: Communism doesn't work. Compare our "poor" to the real poor in the world, and you will realize just how good people have it in this nation.
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 08:54 AMMTC Who does fall into "this" category as you state? How many cant afford HC and are denied healthcare through Medicaid, Medicare, etc?
We DO need an individual based plan, not an employer based plan. This is where true competition kicks in and prices drop and services are increased. Are there exceptions? Hell yes, but that is where the fixes need to happen.
People are bitching about Guiliani's plan and it is not even complete yet. Holes galore that no one denies, but it is a start.
As a Democrat, I hope this cross-dressing serial divorcer gets the GOP nod. He will be exposed and wiped out in general election
Posted by It's True on August 2, 2007 10:22 AMIt's True,
Me too, then we can invade Pakistan.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 10:31 AMYeah, It's true... cuz that cross dressing serial enabler Hildabeast and her communist notions are soooo much better.
Cuz, if she is female, then I am a ballerina.
Posted by Dravur on August 2, 2007 10:35 AM"MTC Who does fall into "this" category as you state? How many cant afford HC and are denied healthcare through Medicaid, Medicare, etc?"
I have no idea what this means. Could you restate it in a legible and coherent manner?
"This is where true competition kicks in and prices drop and services are increased."
LOL, now that's just funny! What a fairytale... You have no idea how the HC industry works,, do you?
Posted by My Two Cents on August 2, 2007 10:54 AMMy Two Cents is absolutely correct. The insurance companies run health care, and unless the government FORCES them to insure everyone, most people would not qualify for coverage.
Anyone who is on anti-depressants, has had joint replacement, cardiac problems and a host of other common illnesses would be denied.
Be assured, the insurance companies have lots of money and lobbyists. They will never let the Gov dictate to them.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 10:58 AMMTC
You stated "And, let's leave the illegal question out of this--not everyone who can't afford health insurance falls into the category." Who falls within this category. You choose to exlude part of the problem by dismissing them. What is the number of ininsured that truly need help?
So MTS please tell me how the HC industry works and HOW BY having the Govt take control of it, it will all be better.
YOU Chose to leave out the next sentence for my comment of "This is where true competition kicks in and prices drop and services are increased." I then say "Are there exceptions? Hell yes, but that is where the fixes need to happen."
BUT you conveniently left that off. What that didnt help your argument. If you want to go into details around this I will happily comply.
In your version there are problems so lets change the whole damn thing, and dont fix the problems where they exist.
But please let us all in on your grand Socialized plan and idea of how it should work. Then we can start putting $$$ to it all as it pertains to primary, secondary, n.... costs for the US.
Example are you looking for Govt to run the Benefit administration side only or to also have them run the Patieint Care division of healthcare also?
From there we can look at costs associated with the conversion based upon your answer and then look at true costs, not just the costs of administrating a fictitious system that needs to be built.
Oh btw I know nothing about HC
First off Moonbat--were did I ever say I supported governmental control of HC? I guess in your paranoid little world, everyone is a "socialist", huh?
Second, I don't have the time or the patience to explain the inner workings of the HC industry, its profit-driven motive for existence or how they go out of their way to reduce benefits and payment of claims or the actuarial concepts of pooled risks.
So, you tell me Mr. Know-it-all (except for proper grammar, spelling and punctuation)--how are you going to get the HC insurers to accept everyone that applies for insurance and do so at a reasonable rate? How are you going to stop them from actively looking for ways to deny benefits and payments?
And this, "You stated "And, let's leave the illegal question out of this--not everyone who can't afford health insurance falls into the category." Who falls within this category?", is too stupid a question to answer.
Posted by My Two Cents on August 2, 2007 11:37 AMWhy arent you right ring Republican bastards upset by the 400 Billion going in the toilet called Iraq? That money comes out of your pockets too!
Posted by jimmyd on August 2, 2007 11:39 AMjimmyd
because it makes moron socialist extreme left wing liberal dumocrats really *issed off that you cant use that for your socialist nanny state programs.
watch out as one of your selected wonders is talking about going into Pakistan for his play ground to hunt out osama
Posted by on August 2, 2007 11:49 AMYes avoid the details MTS. Much easier to make big feeling statements and then critique grammer and spelling and name calling as your true arguement.
What kind of system are you looking for then if not a National HC system run by govt?
Why is it too stupid to categorize the #s that dont have coverage?
Is it because
1. Many younger americans choose not to get coverage.
2. Many are between jobs, qualify for COBRA and have not elected COBRA yet.
3 Many that make over 75K choose to pay as they go.
4. Illegals using services that do not have a HC plan.
YES there are those that are truly needy and we need to help them.
This is something that needs to be looked at and done with PRIVATE and PUBLIC expertise to fix.
You wont make a stand on what you want, we just know you dont want for profit companies. That tells a lot.
1) Wealthy republicans, such as Rudolph Giuliani and George W. Bush, believe that most people's motivations center around the tax code. Therefore, they believe that giving people the opportunity to get a slightly larger refund at the end of the year will induce them into spending large amounts of money they don't have throughout the year.
The problem is that health coverage is not affordable to most people. If they have to buy it, most people cannot. It makes no difference that if you lay out $15,000 for health insurance your tax burden will be $1000 lighter if you don't have the $15,000 to begin with.
Furthermore, the working poor pay little in taxes as it is. This deduction will be useless to many of them, even if they could come up with the money to buy insurance in the first place.
The deduction would be valuable, however, as an added tax shelter to the wealthy. By supplementing their employer-provided insurance with $15,000 in added coverage, somebody making over $100,000 a year could realize significant tax savings. They are the ones who need to shave that kind of money off their income come tax season.
It is no solution to someone who can't afford insurance to tell them to buy insurance with the prospects of very minor tax savings in the future.
2) Health insurance is one area where private industry is far less efficient than government. By focusing all of its efforts on finding ways to avoid paying claims, the private health insurance industry is responsible for the outrageous administrative costs associated with the healthcare system.
Typically, government is inefficient and wasteful. But it is indisputable that Medicare spends far less on administration than private health plans and that the American healthcare system wastes a higher percentage of healthcare expenditures on administrative costs than any country in the world. It is why we spend more and cover less than anywhere in the world.
I am a free-market capitalist. But not for free markets' sake. The reason capitalism works is because it is efficient. Where it is not efficient, we should admit that and look for better ways to administer a particular area of the economy. My affection for capitalism does not prevent me from examining evidence. Like everything else in the world, free markets are not 100% reliable. Let's admit that the free market has not worked here and move on.
Posted by Frank on August 2, 2007 12:20 PMJust curious, are there any programs that Republicans feel are worthy of their tax money? Obviously social programs are out. Perhaps it would be better to have no government, no taxes, everyman for himself? Just make it pay as you go for everything? With no socia programs that illgals could get, I doubt theyd come here, but if they did why care? theyd pay the same taxes (zero) as us and do all the dirty work still.
Posted by jimmyd on August 2, 2007 12:25 PMhere is a social update on one payer system in england.
Obese people are often simply greedy and should not always be treated with pills, the head of the British Medical Association has said.
Dr Hamish Meldrum believes an obsession with medical labels may be stopping overweight people addressing their own problems.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 12:29 PM"Just curious, are there any programs that Republicans feel are worthy of their tax money?"-jimmyd
Here you go:
1) National defense and international relations.
2) Fire and police agencies.
3) The court system.
4) The construction and maintenance of highways and roads.
There are more, but I think you get the idea.
"Obviously social programs are out."
For the most part, yes.
"Perhaps it would be better to have no government, no taxes, everyman for himself?"
No, but a lot less government involvement would be nice. I would settle for holding the level of government involvement in our lives where it is now; not increasing it.
Posted by Mike on August 2, 2007 12:40 PMMike,
Essentially just enough programs, police and military to keep the downtrodden down and away from your money, eh?
Just curious, how do you think your tax money is being spent in the Iraq debacle? is that justified spending? How about when we have to build it back up? Justified or not? It cetrainly has nothing to do with naional defense, is that considered international relations?
Frank,
"Health insurance is one area where private industry is far less efficient than government."
It's not a question of providing insurance. It's a question of providing health care.
Health insurance isn't truly "insurance" at all -it's just a way of redirecting costs. Auto collision insurance works because most people don't wreck their car. But everybody gets sick.
The current health care system does not operate under free market principles. It is the government interference in the market that has created the problems you propose to solve with yet more government interference.
Get the government out of the health care business and allow health care to operate with the efficiencies imposed by markets and the costs wil be proportional to the benefits.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
there are some great programs for tax money to fund
national defense
highways
federal courts
an 18 month welfare system and then off.
lets use a flat tax system of 10% for everyone to pay on items they purchase. [think of it this was if a modest income person buy a car at a cost of 5k and a much hated rich republican buys one at 50k who will pay more taxes? the rich guy but the modest person has self respect because he is contributing to the pot]
but then lets dump the elected officals retirement program and put them on SSI like everyone else and not their golden blue ribbon everything is paid for plan they created for themselves.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 01:04 PMFirst of all, your lack of grammatical skills makes it difficult to believe that you are not lazy or ignorant--or a combination of both. THAT tells a lot.
"What kind of system are you looking for then if not a National HC system run by govt?"
How about a combination of the two? Perhaps a bare-boned, low-cost, guaranteed issue plan for everyone with the option for additional coverage for those that can pay for it. Or, is that too "socialist" for you?
As Frank states so eloquently states above--the administration costs of private HC is obscenely high, so if you take away the incentive to pad the bottom line by denying claims or benefits and apply that to actually providing HC care benefits, everyone is better off. Except the CEO's of course.
You see you fail at reading comprehension as well. I said "can't afford" coverage, not "don't have" coverage. Big difference. Besides, by staying out of the market, those groups of people you cite drive up the cost of HC coverage for those who do obtain it. It is called adverse selection.
"You wont make a stand on what you want, we just know you dont want for profit companies."
Nice assumption. Too bad you have absolutely no clue as to what I want or think. Perhaps I should assume that you feel it is appropriate for someone to profit from the misery and sickness of others...
Competition among insurance companies is allready working with Medicare prescipions plans and have many people a lot of money
Posted by tj on August 2, 2007 01:15 PM@James Jones--
"Health insurance isn't truly "insurance" at all -it's just a way of redirecting costs. Auto collision insurance works because most people don't wreck their car. But everybody gets sick."
It is too bad you really don't understand what you are talking about before you put your thoughts down in writing.
Insurance: "coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specific contingency or peril." That is exactly what a health benefit contract does. Exactly the same as auto, home or life coverage.
"It is the government interference in the market that has created the problems you propose to solve with yet more government interference."
So, in your mind, it is a bad thing that companies are made to pay claims in a fair and timely manner? Or that they are required to live-up to the terms of the contract that they enter into?
Wow...
Well MTS you are very good at making statements and then having to back off of them, but you do so in an obstructive and rude manner. This is your mode of operation for as long as I have read your posts.
You started the attack by cherrypicking what you thought made your point and change my point to fit your beliefs. I asked you a question. If you did not understand initially you could have politely replied. You chose reply back with attacks and selected soundbites.
So what is your excuse for fouling up your sentence structure? You are much too busy. Hell we are all busy and choose to prioritize what we edit and run through spellcheck.
I too, am looking at a combination of both private and public, but you failed to read or comprehend.
What you say you believe combined with your responses and rhetoric do not match. I could cut/paste all day to prove that point, but you would just change the focus and a waste of both of our time.
Have a good day
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 01:40 PMHow about a flat Income tax rate. 10% of what you have, no hokey deductions or anything, just here is what you made, pay the government 10%. Make $20K your tax is 2K make 20 million, your tax is 2 million
Posted by jimmyd on August 2, 2007 02:04 PM"Mike,
Essentially just enough programs, police and military to keep the downtrodden down and away from your money, eh?"
Keep the downtrodden down? No. Keep everyone (downtrodden included) away from my money? Yes; except where I CHOOSE to give it. Don't force me to be charitable. I will decide that on my own.
"Just curious, how do you think your tax money is being spent in the Iraq debacle? is that justified spending? How about when we have to build it back up? Justified or not? It cetrainly has nothing to do with naional defense, is that considered international relations?"
Yes, it is justified and it would fall under national defense and international relations; also, protecting our national interests.
Shanibug,
I have a question and a request for you.
Question:
Which is worse; being selfish with your own money, or being generous with someone else's?
Request:
Please provide me with your justification for confiscating money from one person, so you can give it to another. Basically, explain why one person is entitled to the fruits of another's labor.
Jimmyd,
A flat tax would be great. There is no punishment for being successful (and being forced to pay a higher rate) and, everyone shares in the tax burden.
The current health care system does not operate under free market principles. It is the government interference in the market that has created the problems you propose to solve with yet more government interference.
Get the government out of the health care business and allow health care to operate with the efficiencies imposed by markets and the costs wil be proportional to the benefits.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
Why? Cause you say so, or did you pull it out your ass?
Any facts to back up your claims?
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 2, 2007 02:57 PMJames Jones
Your assertion that government interference is responsible for the problems with healthcare is not supported nor is it supportable. How do you explain the quantum leap in efficiency that Medicare represents over private insurance.
Health is not a commodity that a consumer can weigh the benefits of purchasing or not purchasing and then make a decision about whether it's worth it to purchase. Healthcare/drug providers know this and know that no matter what they charge, it will be worth it to the consumer. Insurance companies must then develop creative new ways to avoid paying prices that are not controlled by any market forces. They must spend a lot of money figuring out what they can get away with refusing to pay. This drives the cost of healthcare up further. And on and on.
This system is broken and cannot be fixed by market forces that do not apply to it. Illness will happen to everyone and is largely unpredictable. That is why it is probably best to view healthcare as an aggregate cost that should be spread evenly across society so that no person is in danger of losing their home and life savings when their flu turns into pneumonia. Costs would be controlled, predictable and manageable.
A system that leaves a great many uncovered and the rest with a coverage scheme that seeks to deny coverage when its needed is dysfunctional, inefficient and unnecessary.
Posted by Frank on August 2, 2007 02:59 PMFrank and Glow in Dark guy. Its called Government Mandates. Local, State, and Federal mandates. Can cost up to 30% of all administrative costs.
Frank states "Health is not a commodity that a consumer can weigh the benefits of purchasing or not purchasing and then make a decision about whether it's worth it to purchase. "
Why is this currently the case? Because the way the Govt taxes individuals. The way it is currently structured keeps us with an Employer Based Health distribution system. If the tax structure was set so that it made it an individual based distribution system, we could very well make it more of a commodity by shear numbers. More leverage for cost and services could be attained.
Does this mean that Govt does not need to have a role in how HC is distributed? No, they still need to be involved to insure that we can maintain what is best for the country.
When you look at costs associated with a "National" or "Socialized" plan, be aware that those are just the ongoing distribution costs and not what it will actually cost to migrate and implement.
Yes the system is broken. It is the fault of both Private and Govt entities that have caused this to happen. It will take both to fix.
I find it difficult to understand that while the "Socialized or National" HC countries are concerned that their plan does not work and adding or allowing "Private" plans to pick up for the ineffecient Govt run plans. At the same time we are trying to jump head first into what other countries are trying to get out of.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 03:25 PMFrank, good post.
Something to note is that we spend only 5% of the healthcare budget on prevention.
JimmyD,
I think I would prefer a flat sales tax over a flat income tax, because there's more incentive to save with a sales tax. For example, I get paid $50K, no taxes. From there I can spend as much of it as I choose... say I choose to spend $20K of it, and the sales taxes on that are $5K-- by my own decision-making, I get to keep and/or invest the remaining $25K. Let's say I spend $40K and get sales-taxed $10K. It's my own damn fault I'm paying an extra $5K in taxes and have $0K left over.
Now with a flat income tax, let's say $5K is wiped off the top without any of my say-so through income tax. I now have $45K. I can spend $20K of it or $40K of it, and my tax burden won't change. Hence, less incentive to save.
Of course, corporations would rather see us spend, spend, spend, so guess which system they would back. However, I would prefer the sales tax system for the savings incentive.
Posted by Dan on August 2, 2007 03:56 PMPut Big Brother in charge of my healthcare?
Hmmmmmmm, NOPE Nuh Unhh
Posted by on August 2, 2007 04:10 PMbwr-
What are these gov't mandates that you speak of? Please elaborate.
Posted by Tbone on August 2, 2007 04:13 PMTbone I am on my home pc and do not have the pdf that went through different costs associated with the Govt Mandates. Here are a couple off the top of my head. (parts of all of these have great value and by the naming does not mean that I dissaprove of nor fully support in entirety. Just that they add costs to the admin overhead)
1. MMA - Medicare Modernization Act
2 NPI - National Provider Indicator(?)
3 HIPAA - Many sub mandates that come out yearly.
4 There are multiple Laboratory mandates
5 SOX - Not limited to HC companies.
6 Medicare and Medicaid mandates and updates.
Those listed above only include the Benefit plan side and there are many that are non-capital expenditures. I think some can be capitalized, but not positive.
Soooo TBone do I qualify as providing misinformation, lying, deception or did I answer your question to your satisfaction. I will try to find the .pdf file tomorrow and provide other information if you desire.
Tbone you may questioning the fact that I may have a dog in this fight(no relation to Vick or bad news kennels). Yes I do, but not in the fashion you may think. I will $$$profit$$$ much more in the case of the proposed National HC plan. The need for new interfaces and working systems that connect the NEW govt benefits engine(s) will have to integrate with all of new and existing Patient Care providers. Thats where I come in. So if I were truly the evil capitalist that I get blamed for, I would for sure be voting for a National HC plan.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 05:19 PM”Put Big Brother in charge of my healthcare?
Hmmmmmmm, NOPE Nuh Unhh”
When I read this kind of thing I wonder if the writer knows what they are asking for.
So here’s the thing, pretty much all the big reductions in mortality rates and improvements in life-expectancy over the last century or two have come from healthcare and social changes like inoculations, clean water, sewage and waste disposal, and education and inculcation of basic things like washing hands, bathing, and sanitary handling of food. We also removed things like malaria and yellow fever which were at one time big killers in the US.
These were brought about by government programs, not individual patient/doctor interaction in a clinical setting.
We have doubled our life expectancy and vastly reduced infant mortality mainly due to “big brother”.
If “big brother” goes away, then those killers will tend to return and cholera, yellow fever, malaria, polio and a host of other killers that the healthcare system is currently keeping at bay will drag life expectancy back down.
On top of that, our current model favours clinical delivery over prevention, so we are a lot sicker even now than we should be. We spend a paltry 5% of the healthcare tab on prevention and so wind up spending far more on very expensive clinical responses to problems that could have been nipped in the bud for a fraction of the cost.
My question is this : how will anybody other than “big brother” address something like the eradication of smallpox?
Posted by Bango Skank on August 2, 2007 06:40 PMbwr responds that the tax structure is the reason that health is not a commodity that can be traded like other goods. Please see part 1 of my first post, regarding the belief, widely held among Republicans, that most people consider the tax code in making all the commonplace decisions encountered in their daily lives.
Health is not a commodity because it is not negotiable. I cannot rationally choose not to live because someone is charging too high a premium to allow me to live. This has nothing to do with taxes. The fact that the working poor cannot afford health also has nothing to do with how much income they report on their W2's.
Posted by Frank on August 2, 2007 08:10 PMFrank,
"Your assertion that government interference is responsible for the problems with healthcare is not supported nor is it supportable."
Yes it is:
Prior to 1960, health care spending as a percent of gross national product (GNP) increased very slowly in the United States. After the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health care spending soared.
Between 1940 and 1960, health care spending rose modestly, from 4 percent of GNP to 5.2 percent.
Since 1960, the percent of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on health care has almost tripled, reaching 14.1 percent in 1992.
According to the Congresional Budget Office, Medicare and Medicaide account for about 21% of all federal spending in 2006.
Medical care is not a free market.
"How do you explain the quantum leap in efficiency that Medicare represents over private insurance."
The question is not who has developed the most effective bureaucracy. The question is,Why does an asprin in a hospital cost $5?
The short answer is that Government at all levels now spends 53 percent of all health care dollars.
This clearly is not a free market.
"Health is not a commodity because it is not negotiable."
Heath is not a commodity but health care is.
The primary reason why health care spending is out of control is that most of the time when we enter the medical marketplace as patients we are spending someone else's money rather than our own.
You consistenly conflate health care with socializing payment so your claim
" I am a free-market capitalist"
becomes increasingly suspect.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 08:45 PMWe have doubled our life expectancy and vastly reduced infant mortality mainly due to “big brother”.
Posted by Bango Skank on August 2, 2007 06:40 PM
Our longer lives and better health are due to the advances made in medical science. Government does not have the capacity to treat anyone. Government has the capacity to take money away form one set of people and give it to another - nohting more.
The advances we have seen to date will not continue if we don't shift big brother out of the way.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 08:58 PMFrank, I guess we disagree. I see the costs going sky high with a Govt only run system. I also see patient care services decreasing. I guess it boils down on what a person is willing to give up for a Universal system.
Yes there are definate abuses on both sides. I think we should look at an integrated plan that involves all parties involved. Replacing wholesale will create unemployment that far exceeds just the HC fields that will be eliminated. Software, support, and retail distributions that support HC organizations will downsize and in some cases go out of business. Is this number talked about? No. Does this number exceed the benefits of Universal coverage? What do we tell those people? "Well be happy you are covered?"
What of R&D for medical procedures, equipment and drugs? If it is only profits that drive R&D for Private companies, what incentives will there be for R&D? Does Govt cover this cost also? If so this has not been put into the formulas for cost. Also how does this affect the rest of the world? We are compassionate caring people right? oops
Bottom line. I dont think we truly realize what the impacts are of a Universal system. We are not like other countries and I feel we do not fit into those buckets. Am I saying that Universal HC is not an option? No but why not fix areas that we can, with joint Private and Govt work? In the end we may not have a choice, but be careful of what we wish for here.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 09:43 PMPrior to 1960, health care spending as a percent of gross national product (GNP) increased very slowly in the United States. After the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health care spending soared.
Between 1940 and 1960, health care spending rose modestly, from 4 percent of GNP to 5.2 percent.
Since 1960, the percent of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on health care has almost tripled, reaching 14.1 percent in 1999.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 08:45 PM
So? How does A=B ? Coincidence does not equal causality.
We have doubled our life expectancy and vastly reduced infant mortality mainly due to “big brother”.
Posted by Bango Skank on August 2, 2007 06:40 PM
Our longer lives and better health are due to the advances made in medical science. Government does not have the capacity to treat anyone.
Posted by James Jones on August 2, 2007 08:58 PM
What a bunch of bull! What does a VA hospital do if not treat people?
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 2, 2007 09:52 PMFrank forgot one piece. My apologies
Why then do we have an employee based HC distribution system rather than an individual based distribution system? Why is it that you or I or any individual for that fact, run out and get our own individual plans? Are we not penalized through taxes for not getting our HC from an employer? Take away that tax penalty and give me the right to shop for my own HC. I then have the choice of quality and price. I can decide on whether I put emphasis on preventative or other types based upon age, physical condition, etc. YES controls and oversight need to happen to make sure that abuses do not continue to happen.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 11:23 PMbwr
Now you know that making sense and being rational is not working here.
My husband and I have health insurance and because the company he works for chose to change insurers last December, right after I spent a month in the hospital in cardiac ICU, we have had to cover two full year deductables in six months. (3 more heart attacks and two other surgeries as well as a special iplant for my heart that is a pacemaker/defibrillator.) Not only that but we also have to deal with co-pays that are outrageous and twice or more what the policy maximum is. Give us the 15000 tax credit, yes it's a tax credit where we get the money no matter how much we earn, and let us buy our own insurance. I hve several pre-existing conditions and would doubtless save money on a single payer system but I have seen government mandated health care as our government runs it. You can see it at the VA. I'll take my chances in the free market. Now if anyone thinks I want help I'll say yes. Self-helpl
Preventative care is a nice concept but several studies have shown that even in a single payer system there is a signifigant percentage of people who don't take advantage of anything but treatments. People also have another reason for NOT making use of healthcare, I can see the next step in this losing proposition, and it is a practical one. If you take time to see a doctor you lose work time and part of your pay in most cases. As soon as we get socialized healthcare we will be faced with that reality and the result will be a push for MORE government regulations. Can someone please tell me why the supporters of socialized medicine are so afraid of the free market in health care that they won't give it a try. They can always add the government to anything but getting it out of anything is like getting the cat off of your Thanksgiving dinner table. Possible in theory but no one's really tried it yet because they're afraid.
Momma y (we have seen each others posts on other health care issues).
Some of us are afraid because we have experienced what you experience. I am afraid of going broke over my daughter's Type 1 diabetes (never to be confused with Type 2 diabetes). Look at the profit taking in the free market oil industry. There has got to be middle ground somewhere. Wyoming Senator Enzi tried to pass a bill that would do away with State mandates for insurance coverage (diabetes coverage is a mandate for Colorado as are mammograms, prostate exams, etc). If I were to purchase health care for my 12 year old daughter who has experienced two seizures and the flu bug which can be deadly to a Type 1 and that landed her in the emergency room, together with the vials of insuin, pumps, meters, sticks, numbing cream, insertion devices, etc., I would be filing bankruptcy and living off the government on welfare. I am self supporting currently. But I don't trust the government, I don't trust insurance companies. Things need to change but there has got to be a solution somewhere in the middle. Most of these posts are well thought out....I don't like the name calling...sounds too political and makes the writer sound juvenile.
Posted by cheryl on August 3, 2007 09:35 AMJames said ”Our longer lives and better health are due to the advances made in medical science.”
Reduction in mortality in almost every case except immunization precedes the clinical advance because of social factors and public health initiatives. The big savings have come from these, not from clinical advances. That’s what the lectures at Harvard say.
I think you are uninformed on this topic.
”Government does not have the capacity to treat anyone. Government has the capacity to take money away form one set of people and give it to another - nohting more”
Government can change or enact laws – such as food quality, drug safety, etc., it can research to find causes – such as the CDC, FDA, it can implement water treatment and sewage programs, it can tax or subsidize foods, drugs or commodities, it can implement preventative and reductive programs such as with polio and MMR inoculations, it can enact vehicle safety regulations such as seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, and reinforced fueltank design, and so on and so forth. It can enact design and safety standards for roads, waterways, and aircraft. Government is in fact the greatest agent in reducing mortality and morbidity.
I think you are misinformed here too.
”The advances we have seen to date will not continue if we don't shift big brother out of the way.”
Without government involvement there is nothing to keep health education and all the other programs and efforts I have already mentioned. No corporation is ready to step in to defeat epidemics and other big killers. So the old killers will return if government doesn’t play its role. Government is also what reduced mortality and morbidity due to tobacco.
Every 10% increase in tax on tobacco leads to a 4.5% decrease in smokers and 10% decrease in pregnant women. That leads to a net savings in thousands of lives, and illnesses and reduced life expectancy of the children.
Not only that but the new big killer is obesity and no corporation is able to reduce morbidity and mortality due to obesity.
However, removing the subsidies on corn-syrup and taxing refined foods responsible as well as passing laws on how high-energy/low-nutrition foods and beverages may be marketed (especially to children) can save thousands of lives and billions of dollars in lost productivity and clinical costs.
Government is also the only organization that can set up an appropriate prevention & response program to new infectious threats like SARS, Avian Flu, and HIV.
SARS was the epidemic that didn’t happen because “big brother” acted swiftly and correctly.
Once again, I think you are poorly informed.
CDC and Harvard Medical School amongst others publish good material on these things, I suggest you make use of them.
Would you like yellow fever and cholera and polio to return to a neighborhood near you?
Get rid of the government programs and they will be back within a century, same with syphilis, tapeworm, rickets, and a host of other really entertaining maladies.
Bango
Without government involvement there is nothing to keep health education and all the other programs and efforts I have already mentioned.
was sufficient.
We need the government, taking our money and spending it more wisely then we would and regulating our lives to ensure that we stay on the right track or we would just wander aimlessly through life with no purpose.
The government is the engine of prosperity and the providor of social justice.
Without the governement we the peole are a pitiable, helpless and doomed to a life of no purpose.
I guess we're just dumb lucky to elect people to poltical office that have the wisdom of angels.
For why is a man born but to serve Ceasar?
I get it.
Posted by James Jones on August 3, 2007 10:41 AMJames, I think you are confusing "leadership" with "government", without leaders we tend to be aimless, which is why you glom onto Mr.Bush so tightly. You exhibit the exact behaviour characteristics of somebody committed to a leader.
But nice try, I assume this was the best response you could muster and therefore that you have exhausted any kind of rational argument for why you believe government is an impediment to rather than a source of public health.
So now that the rational part of this discourse is done, shall we move on to the part in which we exchange entertaining insults and penis comparisons?
I believe we can start with the accusation that you are a “glow in the dark bitch”, I find that one very funny, second only to the Kool-Aid references.
Bango,
So I glom on to Bush because he is exhibits leadership by being aimless. Rational discourse ended earlier then yor realize.
Posted by James Jones on August 3, 2007 12:27 PMMany good comments both for and against socialized medicine here.
One argument nobody likes to address is the competency of our federal government when it comes to running a bureaucracy.
Given the govs track record of wasteful spending and the inability to maintain efficiency in virtually everything they touch, why does anyone think things would be different with healthcare?
To date the only argument in the govs defense has been "trust us this time."
And I say not on your life.
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 12:48 PMJames feebly mumbled ” So I glom on to Bush because he is exhibits leadership by being aimless. Rational discourse ended earlier then yor realize.”
No Jimmy, you need to clean those bifocals. The facts given are that you glom onto him, you regard him as your leader, and without that you would be aimless.
As I said, the rational part is over and we now exchange amusing insults.
If your willy was as long as your attention-span, you wouldn’t pee on your legs anymore but your shoes would still have yellow stains.
I am waiting for your attempt at an amusing insult, please don’t disappoint the audience with something feeble.
Bango,
I did mis-read your insult.
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that I support Bush, the reality is that he signed legislation creating the largest medical entitlement to date. Bush has done more to socialize medicine than any President to date.
My mis-interpretation make more sense than what you intended.
Jimmy said ” Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that I support Bush, the reality is that he signed legislation creating the largest medical entitlement to date. Bush has done more to socialize medicine than any President to date.”
Good grief Jimmy, is this the best you can do?
Everyone here knows you are a Bushite par excellence, the reek rises from you like marsh gas on a hot August Sunday.
The rest of your statement is bizarre, you are actually bragging about Bush socializing medicine!
I suppose that shows that to you, whatever your leader does must be grand even if it is the very opposite of what you claim to believe in.
Did you have meningitis as a child James, or are you just prone to seizures of the frontal lobes?
Dont whine Bango - it's unseemly.
Posted by James Jones on August 3, 2007 05:42 PMBango, I think James was joking but in here our sarcastic meter seems to need resetting.
I am in real turmoil over the present legislation, the plans at least, in the state legislature about healthcare. I suspect that I would be a bit better off under some of the plans, at first. Also the passing of this legislation would guarantee a republican majority in at least one chamber next election. Very tempting. I think I will stick with my first opinion just because I don't want my grand daughter to live in a nanny state with rationed healthcare..and rationing will be necessary. There is a finite amoumt of time available for all of the medical care providers to treat patients. There is also a limit on the number of hospital beds, treatment options and other things it might be considered necessary to have for medical care. We might not call it rationing and there is also a bit of this in any system because people can't afford some things and choose not to obtain others. At least here a part of it is individual choice.
I also think more would approve of a general health care benefit if it was limited to a preventive care package. Of course the real problem with that is no government program is ever allowed to remain limited. There is a built in flaw in the logic that preventative care will be a magic improvement. Some preventative care, like prenatal care is more "if only" and there is little evidence of practical benefits in comparison to costs. I think we need to douible check with the single payer systems to see if there really is much of an improvment here.
Posted by momma y on August 3, 2007 08:11 PMCheryl
Your situation is very special and most difficult. There should be a solution but socialized medicine is not the one I would pick.
Individual payer insurance will make things better than any government mandated system. We need to decide a way to deal with special cases with as little government as possible.
If I have told you this before I apoligize but my husband is a disabled ver. He goes to VA for healthcare. The VA is what the government would do to all healthcare.
When he was diagnosed as diabetic by the VA they refused him any medication because their policy is not to pre-medicate. If diet will mostly control it they won't give you any medications. IHe asked them for a meter. They refused. Only those who were on medication qualified to get a meter. We used our pirivate insurance to get him a meter and the doctor gave him medication as well. We paid a high price for strips but between the meter and medication he ended up, along with my special recipes, in almost complete control of his diabetes. Next VA visit.he'd used his computer to print out a listing of his readings. The doctor was pleased and then told him taht since he already had the medication that VA would give it to him and would require that he use their meter so they could download his readings directly from it. They gave him enough strips to test 3 times a day instead of the 5 times he had been testing. We used his meter from VA three times a day and the other meter twice a day. Next visit they only gave him enough strips to test three times a week. It costs too much to buy strips for the VA meter so we buy them for his other meter. If all of healthcare was socialized there would be no choice. The VA also tried to cut off his medication for neuropathy and the Metformin since his glucose readings had not gone outside of the 90-110 range in the testings they permitted. His doctor looked at the printout of the other meter and renewed both prescriptions as well as the medication he needs for pain control for the neuropathy. Kaiser also provides both medications but their co-pay is higher. I get the same meds but Kaiser goes from the higher long dose to the limited dose while VA will give you either one the doctor prescribes.
That is onloy one story of the VA. An emergency appointment for a hernia that was giving hkm pain took 8 months and took a toal of five minutes where they told him since it was not sever pain he should lose 50 pounds and come back. Other appointments and records show a natural governmental pattern of slowness, 10 months to review his records for orthopedic refview of his disability of record, knees hurt in combat, and then a loss of the reocords and 'no idea what his disability might be. He now has to wait until January for a full exam to determine his total disability and then at least a year before any benefit review is possible. That is what you and your family look forward to under government run healthcare but more of the same since the pool of "insured " will be much bigger.. Look for a better way and work for one too.
momma y
You and I have different perspctives. You are looking for a way to manage a costly system. I am looking for a way to make it less costly.
The two areas of American civil life where costs are most out of line with the benefit are education and health care. It is not a coincidence that those are also the two areas where the government is most heavily involved.
The principle that government should help the most vulnerable is animated especially in the case of the young and the ill. As a consequence we have developed soft socialism approaches that have resulted in stilted education and healthcare systems that are always of the verge of melt down.
This is the inevitable consequence of socialism.
I disagree with a couple of your statements:
"There is a finite amoumt of time available for all of the medical care providers to treat patients. There is also a limit on the number of hospital beds, treatment options and other things it might be considered necessary to have for medical care."
The amount of time increases with the amount of providers. There is no limit to the amount of beds we can produce.
The reason those limits don't exist is that human ingenuity and human capacity to create is infinite. But in order for human beings to operate freely, we cannot be constrained and dictated to by bureaucrats. The free market allows the liberty needed to reach our full capacity for creation and invention.
The command control approach run by politicians each trying to out-promise his rival is the source of our current problems.
The reforms needed then should be based not on futhering the reach of socialism but in infusing free market approaches.
Not a fact to support his case James Jones blathers on about freedom.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 5, 2007 05:03 PMJames Jones: "The reason those limits don't exist is that human ingenuity and human capacity to create is infinite."
This would be a good line at a political convention. If man's ingenuity and human capacity to create can be called infinite, then the problems to be solved by that ingenuity and human capacity are also infinite. Of course, this idea of Joneses that some day we'll solve all the problems is thing of which fairy tales are made. And even if it be case that somewhere in infinity it will happen, that is of little use to us today or in the foreseeable future.
But it might also be a good line for Jones to preach at a Sunday sermon where reality takes a back seat.
"But in order for human beings to operate freely, we cannot be constrained and dictated to by bureaucrats. The free market allows the liberty needed to reach our full capacity for creation and invention."
Right, Jones, we should have turned the Manhattan project and the man to the moon project and the wars we have fought over to Halliburton.
Jones thinks we have too much regulation. So I presume he would rather have Pfizer than the government deciding whether the drugs Pfizer makes are safe. I presume he would rather we allow China to determine the safety of the food we get from there rather than have all that government interference. And I'm sure it upsets Jones to see the government keeping GMC and others from selling unsafe cars to the public. And I suppose he finds it disgusting the way the government interferes with the "right" of industries to pollute our environment, and the right of toy manufacturers to make a killing on toys which kill chidren. Surely, it must rile me considerably when he sees the government interfere with the "right" of X company to advertise that its suger pills cure cancer. I guess James gets really upset when he sees these policemen and firemen working for the government of some private enterprise. And James surely opposed having the government aid the Katrina victims.
I'm sure Jones would rather see the corporations below running the country instead of being on Forbes' Corporate Scandal Sheet because the mean old government is getting after them for violating government regulations:
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS
AOL TIME WARNER
ARTHUR ADNERSEN
BRISTOL-MYERS
CMS ENERGY
DUKE ENERGY
DYNEGY
EL PASO GAS
ENRON
GLOBAL CROSSING
HALLIBURTON
HOMESTORES
KMART
MERCK
MIRANT
NICOR ENERGY
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS
QWEST
RELIANT ENERGY
TYCO
WORLD COM
XEROX
NOTE: Forbes says these are involved in accounting scandals. It would have been too lengthy to also include corporations like Imclone which have been involved in such as insider trading, and it doesn't include corporate scandals predating Enron.
But Jones is right about one thing. You take away government regulations, and the corporations will show a great deal of ingenuity and creativity in the different ways they steal money from people.