Single payer system will not cut costs
In response to David Montero’s article ‘Panel: Only 1 health plan would cut costs.’ I am unsure just how much medical marijuana Mr. Montero and the editors of the Rocky have been smoking, but it must be significant. Only they could come out and say that a single payer system ‘would cut costs.’ Please help me understand how an 8.1% increase in everybody’s personal income tax cuts costs to us. That’s not from our current rate of 4.7% to 8.1%, but a whopping 12.8% income tax on everybody. That’s almost three times what we currently pay for the government to protect us form ourselves.
To compound the problem, they will additionally finance this ‘cut costs’ program by increasing the payroll taxes to 6%. Where to you think that increase in payroll taxes will come from? That’s right, from the pockets of the workers in decreased and stagnated wages and decreases in other benefits.
As we look deeper into the details as presented by The Lewin Group, the increases in both personal income tax and payroll tax will continue to rise over time and it is expected that in the next 10 years those taxes will be 16.6% and 7.8%, respectively. Personally I can’t afford the single payer program that ‘cuts costs.’ You all need to know the one glowing number all reporters are failing to bring up and that is the $26.578 Billion in new ANNUAL spending with the single payer ‘cut costs’ program. That’s billion with a capital ‘B’ that will be turned over to the state government to manage.
My message to you citizens of Colorado, please do not be fooled as there is no such thing as costs cutting in health care just like in any other product. When’s that last time the cost of a car went down? Exactly, only when you bought one with fewer options and no A/C and no power steering.
Watch your wallets people, as there is are huge costs to you and me when someone says, the ‘plan will cut costs.’
This letter has not been edited.
Perhaps you can explain why the other industrialized countries that use a single-payer system spend way less on health care per capita than we do? And apparently they achieve much better results, as the World Health Organization surveys have shown.
Posted by Romulus on September 20, 2007 03:28 PMRomulus,
Have you actually read the details of WHO's survey? It's an extremely flawed report. For example, it gives life expectancy a 50% weight even though life expectancy is a highly inaccurate method for measuring health care quality.
Posted by John II on September 20, 2007 04:52 PMbecause everyone knows people with good healthcare die at childbirth while people with no healthcare live to be 900
im sure you would not be nitpicking the who report if the usa was still no 1 in life expectancy and average height. (and the who did not include immigrants from asia, latin america or africa in the american sample)
Posted by edmond on September 20, 2007 06:55 PMif single payer plans from around the world are so grand, why do patients in canada and england die while waiting for MRIs for heart attacks?
Posted by on September 20, 2007 07:36 PMif single payer plans from around the world are so grand, why do patients in canada and england die while waiting for MRIs for heart attacks?
Posted by on September 20, 2007 07:36 PM
they don't. that is an urban legend. that is the point of the who survey. it is far better care overall.
Posted by edmond on September 20, 2007 08:35 PMgive us statistics edmond, just how is their care better? Because it "free" I'm sure is one of your "stats" It is not free - it is costly to the tax payer - much more so than paying for it out of your own pocket and shopping the system as I did.
Did you know the WHO reports allows for children that die within 24 hours of birth to not be recorded as part of the infant mortality rate? Don't you think that might influence some statistics?
And don't even get me started on elective procedures in the "Free" system you think would be great here. Rationing means no choice for elective procedures - look it up I'm sure you'll be enlightened.
what exactly is a single payer health care system ??
does anyone even know, or are all of you just parroting something you over heard on the tv ??
Posted by SINGLE PAYER QUESTIONER on September 20, 2007 10:09 PM"Please help me understand how an 8.1% increase in everybody’s personal income tax cuts costs to us. That’s not from our current rate of 4.7% to 8.1%, but a whopping 12.8% income tax on everybody."
It's easy - all other insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles etc go away. Any tax for this is not in ADDITION to what you now pay (and you do pay) but in replacement.
You're welcome.
Posted by Liam on September 20, 2007 10:29 PMSingle Payer Questioner - good question.
Here's a simple explanation - when you go to the store, you are acting as a single payer. If we purchased our other goods and services like we do health care (multi-payer) then instead of paying the cashier and going on your way, you would hand the cashier a co-pay and an "insurance" account number to be billed for the balance. The store would submit the claim, which would be disputed, and result in a bunch of dely, correspondence and haggling. Stores (and you) would have to check whether your plan was even accepted there, etc. Can't you see how that is so much better??
If single pay is such a disaster, why is our entire economy (except health care and higher education - two sectors of high inflation and low efficiency) based on that model???
Posted by Liam on September 20, 2007 10:38 PMThe bottom line?..
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.
clyde - great job parroting a threadbare talking point.
Posted by Liam on September 20, 2007 11:04 PMThe problem with any step towards "socialized medicine" is that we will be giving up something. I'm all for a system that provides health care for everyone at a reasonable cost. I am not willing to give up anything that I have right now!
Edmond, as far as the myth of care being worse in countries with socialized medicine...it is not a myth. A new insulin, called Lantus, was not available in Canada for 3 years after it was available in the US. Because Canada controls the drugs and treatments that it makes available within its system, Lantus was left out.
Chile does not allow for insulin pumps for its citizens. Insulin pump therapy is recognized as the best current treatment option available, yet if you live in Chile and receive "free" health care, you will have to cough up over $6,000 to buy the insulin pump and about $1000 every 3 months to buy the supplies (out of your own pocket even though you have contributed to the current health system with payroll taxes!)
Is our current system perfect...heck no, but don't use sweeping general statements on either side to make a point.
And how in the world did they avoid using immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Africa in the American sample of height/life expectancy? That would leave out about 50% of the population! My poor son (who is well over six feet tall) couldn't be counted because of some Latin heritage! But I guess my German grandmother who barely broke 5 feet was counted!
Posted by idk on September 20, 2007 11:05 PMLiam pondered:
"If single pay is such a disaster, why is our entire economy (except health care and higher education - two sectors of high inflation and low efficiency) based on that model???"
Just when I thought I heard everything...
You're almost there, Liam. Your concept of "single payer" in the private sector is the appropriate way to manage an economy. But, only if the "single payer" is actually the consumer and not a third party (the government).
Using your analogy, when you go to the store, do you pay with a government charge card that you never have to repay? If so, you'd probably buy a lot of stuff without even looking at the price tag. You'd probably even buy stuff you don't really need; why not, you don't have to pay for it anyway.
That's a warped way of looking at "single payer". Yes, there is a single payer, but it's not the consumer.
But, I'm glad to see you understand the benefits of eliminating multi-party payments. Health savings accounts function just as you wish: consumers pay (single payer) directly from their own pretax health savings account. This allows folks to afford health insurance for it's original purpose: to insure against unexpected calamity.
Posted by John II on September 20, 2007 11:20 PMThe current federal (including Social Security and Medicare) low tax rate for most people is 24%. Increase the state tax rate to 12% and increase sales taxes by an overall 3%.Make that 9% total. That means that the lowest tax rate will average 45% of income. That means that a person making 10 dollars an hour for forty hours a week would take home just over 200 dollars for a week's work. Not a good idea. My insurance is not very good but we pay a price of about 100 dollars a week for it and then about 200 to 400 dollars a month, average, for insurance co-pays and prescriptions. Total is 900 dollars a month. My husband makes about 32000 a year before taxes. So we would pay 14,400 a year under this plan. 1200 a month is a 33% increase in costs for us. That would be enough to cut our food budget in half and force us to keep the house quite cold in the winter and leave the AC off.
The waiting and the care denial in the single payer system is rampant but those panting to socialize health care here deny it because there is little reason for the countries to admit the failures. People who come here for better health care are real and provide evidence for the health care failures of the single payer system. Of course if you do a search for yourself the Canadian health care system has a report from their own government attempting to analyze and solve problems. One way cited is to deny care to late stage breast cancer victims. It cuts the costs.
The only way to provide a finite product, health care, to all is through making decisions on what care is allowed for what reasons and for how long. There will also be a greater demand for health care so the lines of people waiting for it will be longer.
You pay more and get less when you deal with any product monopoly. The monopolies held or maintained by a government are no exception. Don't think for a minute that the wealthy will wait or be denied care. They can pay for it and they will get it.
If we let the people pay their own way and gave them assistance in the payments for the insurance program we would gain more care at a lower cost. That is one approach this commission, and any other government centered commission will never consider. They just know we are unable to think for ourselves in this area.
I have a great interest in this subject even though it will not really affect me. I am dying of heart failure. The doctors estimate I will probably make it to 2008 if I am lucky. 2009 is not in the picture. My heart muscle is mostly dead and there is no treatment for it. I am a 56 year old diabetic with kidney failure so not a candidate for a heart transplant. I fight this fight because I met many people from Canada when I was a taxi driver taking people to our ski areas and when I was a truck driver going all over the country. Most of them don't like the system but have no critical experience with it. The two I met who had those experiences had badly broken legs from ski accidents. They came to Colorado for the orthopedic treatments and rehab they were unable to get in Canada. It is available but the surgeries and other treatments are hard to get approved, according to these men, and the wait is likely to cause more damage.
We don't need this kind of meddling and bad medicine here. None of us is perfect and no government is perfect. We need to remember that the highest authority in our personal lives must be the individual. The choices must be left to us for the management of our lives. Health care is too personal to turn over.
Posted by momma y on September 20, 2007 11:29 PMJohn II - while it is true that no 2 things are exactly comparable, and that a health care system run and paid for by the American people as part of the American social contract would not be exactly the same as buying groceries, if the American people can provide gold-plated health care for their employees (the President, all elected officials, gov't employees and the families of all these people) then, if it's good enough for our employees, why can't we get some of what we provide for them? As a taxpayer, I pay for health care for retirees, prisoners, and gov't employees. When do I get some of what I am buying for everyone else?
As for the delivery model, I just want what we provide to our brave soldiers, which last time I looked ws 100% provided by the American people, not by any third party private group. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. If it's not good enough for them, then heads should roll, from Bush on down.
Posted by Liam on September 21, 2007 06:04 AMritter said we will spend 7 billion to save less than 2 billion in health care for socialized med. hillary said her health care will only cost 110 billion a year. if you believe either of those numbers you really dont understand how the government will low ball everything and when it increases 20% or more they will find a way to say something just came into view they didnt know about.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 07:09 AMLiam wondered:
"if the American people can provide gold-plated health care for their employees (the President, all elected officials, gov't employees and the families of all these people) then, if it's good enough for our employees, why can't we get some of what we provide for them?"
Because our employees are much less than 300 million people.
7:09 said:
"if you believe either of those numbers you really dont understand how the government will low ball everything and when it increases 20% or more they will find a way to say something just came into view they didnt know about."
You hit the nail on the head. There is no way Hillary's plan will cost just $110 billion. Even if it did, it would quickly balloon to several times more than that as politicians eventually expand it to get more votes.
Posted by John II on September 21, 2007 07:23 AMA "single payer" health plan, to put it simply, is a plan where the working people ( those with income) pay for EVERYONE'S health care. In other words, the haves pay for both themselves and the have-nots.
Anyone paying taxes will be hurt ( it will cost them more), anyone not paying taxes will be helped. Rich people and politicians, on the other hand, will have private health plans with no waiting; better care; etc , as they do now.
AF
Posted by on September 21, 2007 09:21 AMHow do you like the Hillary healthcare plan? No health care card (proof of coverage), no work.
This is not only a government run monopoly that is hostile to the user, its a totalitarian dictatorship. I also believe that its largely illegal and unconstitutional. Americans are at the very cusp of being treated like aliens without a green card right here in the USA.
The drive for socialized medicine is a trend founded in the belief that the individual is neither strong enough nor intelligent enough to plan his/her own affairs-and that the state has the wisdom(gulp) and capability(gulp gulp) to manage the individual's affairs better then the individual themselves!
Governmental intervention is always dangerous, but nowhere is it more so than in the health-care industry.
We need to keep government out of our health-care and perhaps breath easier -and perhaps even live longer!
Several decades ago, the American people were seduced into abandoning the principles of our ancestors.
The state took control of our education, our economic activity, our social activity , our charitable activity , all through taxation.
Now, the state wants to take control over our health care. If we permit this to happen, we will reap the whirlwind, for the results will be as disastrous as they have been in every other field of governmental endeavor
Posted by A on September 22, 2007 11:55 AMA, lots of folks are neither strong enough or smart enough to take care of themselves. They fall under the average 100 on the i.q. Since we can`t put them on a ship of fools or send them to another country, what should we do with the marginally intelligent and the weak?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 12:58 PMSharon B. You are asking the wrong person you need to address Fidel Castro, Vicente Fox, and Phillipe Calderon with that question!
Posted by A on September 22, 2007 01:50 PMA, no I am asking the folks here who seem to have all the answers on health care.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 23, 2007 12:08 PM