U.S. health care falling behind
In his Sept. 3 letter to the editor, “State control stifles medical innovation,” Russell W. Shurts shows very little compassion for those 46 million Americans who have no health insurance. They are unable to afford the medications he takes daily. They are not able to have arthroscopic surgery. They are not able to have regular checkups to prevent many illnesses, illnesses that are less expensive to treat in their early stages.
Shurts also has not paid much attention to the failures of the present health-care system in the United States. Our life expectancy has fallen behind Great Britain’s with its awful universal health-care system. In the area of infant mortality, we have fallen behind — oh my gosh — a country like Cuba.
He has not paid attention to the fact that the pharmaceutical companies actually spend more money on administrative and marketing costs than they do on research and development.
All this has occurred while the United States has spent more than any other industrialized country for health care. Why? Because the money is not being spent on health care — it is being spent on administrative and marketing costs. A single-payer system would eliminate these unnecessary expenses in favor of providing much needed health care for all.
Susan A. Schiller, Denver
Hey Susan,
You should quit reading so much move on. org.
I have been to many of these other countries you speak of and not all are healthy.
You are right about were the money goes, it goes to administrators, just like it does in education. All the money spent never reaches the patients or students, just like all of the money we pay into taxes never reach the intended goal because administration takes it all. Follow the billion of dollars spent on Katrina and you will find that it never goes beyond politicians and their buddies.
Susan I have one question for you, the amount of money you know spend on health care, will that equal the 25%-40% increase in your taxes for this one-payer system? Because if you do not use it you do not get that money back.........................
Posted by on September 24, 2007 03:24 AMJust a question - are we to assume that the health insurance industry, which is in business to make money, which it does by collecting the most it can from the insured and paying out the least it can get away with REALLY has the welfare of those who are insured at heart?
And are we further to assume that the medical industry which is currently mandated to provide emergency room care regardless of whether the patient is insured or not is NOT passing on those unreimbursed costs to either the insured - or to the patient with anything worth reposessing but no insurance? Why do you think that (for instance) 2 Tylenol (which I am fairly certain hospitals get in bulk) costs more than 2 BOTTLES of Tylenol purchased at your favorite drugstore?
Why don't you folks get it - WE ARE ALREADY PAYING THOSE COSTS YOU ARE SO AFRAID OF. We have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world (I think we are next to last) - and one of the lower lifespans - and this while paying double to triple in GDP what the countries with universal health care are paying.
Posted by Mary on September 24, 2007 04:29 AMquick mary and susan run to cuba so you can have everything free and live to be 100.
why are you still in this country? you can not say anything good about our system so please pick up and leave and be happy somewhere else. you will live longer when you no longer have to worry about free medical care as you will have it.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 06:37 AMWho are these 43 million uninsured? How many of them do not want to pay for insurance or do not have to because they recieve free medical now? I am not saying that all illegals are here for free medical, however how many of them given the chance would be willing to cough up money they recieve under the table from stolen identities and jobs in order to pay for insurance when they do to have to.
Posted by Uninsured Myself on September 24, 2007 06:55 AMI've noticed that this issue has become the main cause for most women who seem to rely more on faulty studies than logic and economic principles.
Our life expectancy has been steadily increasing. I believe it is now 77 years for Americans. The Japanese, at 81, have the highest life expectancy. We're talking four years difference between America and first place Japan. This does not seem like a big deal to me. Especially, when you consider all the vices and over-indulgences Americans partake in.
As for infant mortality, there are a number of factors to consider. The main factor is drug and alcohol abuse. Another thing to consider is the brutal practices of some countries such as Cuba. Would you like to know why Cuba has a lower IMR than America? It's because Cuba aggressively aborts high-risk babies in the womb before they have a chance to show up in IMR statistics. Why do they do this? So, useful idiots such as American liberals will denounce their own country and praise Cuba's health care system.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 08:55 AMSusan and Mary are correct, Those of who oppose universal healthcare are suckers for the insurance industries' propaganda mill which has miraculously brainwashed you into believing that universal coverage is taking away some perceived right. The right is to throw you money into their bank accounts and not question their omnipotence. Your are not only paying for everyones healthcare, you're also contributing to the insurance companies' bottom line (through premiums), while the insurance companies tell you what healthcare they will or will not cover. It's so obvious. How can you possibly be so easily duped?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 09:14 AMA admitted:
"I know our health care system should be totally re-vamped, but, please, please, keep the government out of my health care decisions."
Why should it be totally revamped? There are many small tweaks we can make to the system without totally revamping it. Here's a few:
1) Allow folks in one State to purchase health coverage from another State.
2) Eliminate health insurance tax breaks for employers. This would allow more private groups to flourish and let folks keep their health insurance when they leave their job.
3) Expand Health Savings Accounts. This allows folks to save pretax money for health care expenses.
4) Cap malpractice lawsuit damages. Malpractice lawsuits are increasing fast and so is malpractice insurance. This increases costs and scares away many good doctors from private practice
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 09:16 AMIf the US has a single-payor system forced on them, we will become just like Canada and the UK. There will be two levels of care. 1.) You rely on the government system, which means rationed care, long waits for elective surgery (and anything not emergent is elective). They will tell you what doctor you are allowed to see, and what drugs you are allowed. 2.) If you have enough money, you buy supplemental insurance IN ADDITION to the governmental insurance. Then you can get the care you need in a timely manner. I've been to these countries and seen it first hand.
Think this will be cheaper? Think this will get the "poor" better health care? Not a chance.
Posted by CWW on September 24, 2007 09:21 AMPlease spare us the sob stories about those poor Canadians who have to wait for health care. As if long waits are unknown here. And what's worse, a long wait, or not getting health care at all because you don't have coverage? Somehow every other industrialized country in the world manages to provide health care for all its citizens. Yet we can't manage it despite spending more per capita on health care than anyone else. Funny, I don't see any great stampede by Canada and all those other countries to adopt our system.
Posted by Romulus on September 24, 2007 09:22 AMMr. Broyles wondered:
"How can you possibly be so easily duped?"
You may want to ask yourself that question.
The arguments you made against insurance companies can be made against any other industry. This is not a communist system (yet). Profit is not a dirty word. Profit is what drives a company to stay competitive.
I'm happy with my premiums and I have no problem with a company profiting from my premiums just as I have no problem with a company profiting from my new car purchase. Government interference in the health marketplace is increasing health costs. Yet, instead of acknowledging that fact, you desire even more government interference to correct the problem caused by the original governmental intrusion.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 09:28 AMRomulus stated:
"Somehow every other industrialized country in the world manages to provide health care for all its citizens. Yet we can't manage it despite spending more per capita on health care than anyone else."
We spend more because we make more. We also spend more on our cars than other industrialized countries. We have a much higher per capita income.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 09:37 AM4) Cap malpractice lawsuit damages. Malpractice lawsuits are increasing fast and so is malpractice insurance. This increases costs and scares away many good doctors from private practice
Posted by John II
This is a nonsense argument started by the insurance lobby. Malpractice suits are less than a one percent of health costs.
Posted by It's True on September 24, 2007 10:03 AM"This is a nonsense argument started by the insurance lobby. Malpractice suits are less than a one percent of health costs."
Not true.
1) The actual figure is 2%
2) The total health care cost includes a bloated federal government spending (45%) which wildly distorts the total figure.
John II,
I know that you believe in the "free market"., which I think is a euphemism for profiteering when it comes to healthcare. You can make agood argument for profit and competition when you buy a car. You should have a choice. But you have no choice if you need an operation to save your life.
Under our current system, which you are fortunate enough to afford, you cannot separate the government from the insurance companies because the companies are the authors of the policies. If government has messed up the system, then it's the result of the insurance companies and their lobbying people (which your premiums pay for). It's a matter of getting money out of your pocket and into theirs.
Universal health care wiil be a fact, one day, and its need will be as apparent and accepted as ending discrimination. But how many will suffer, put off much needed treatment or die before it becomes a reality. You can complain about choice and cost but you're paying for everyones healthcare already and the middle man is making a profit off of the misery of others.
Even Mike Rosen, the liberarian radio announcer, acknowledges the inevitability of some sort of universal healthcare.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 10:29 AM3:24 AM,
I am paying more annually for my $5,000 deductible insurance than I pay in federal taxes. So, yes, even a 40% increase in taxes would be a bargain.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 10:44 AMStan, you are not telling the whole story about Mike Rosen. He has said it is probably inevitable as more and more people want "free" health care. He has consistently said he is AGAINST it. He just thinks it may be inevitable.
By your same logic that taking the profit out and letting the .gov run it, you must also want us to take the profit out of automobiles... as everyone needs a car. Everyone needs a house, why not let the .gov dole these out as well? Everyone needs a lot of things... why not give them for "free".
You all want socialized medicine, but can you name one program that the .gov runs that actually works? I can name hundreds of Canadians who have come to this country for complicated procedures that they cannot get in Canada.... I have the list for one hospital in Cleveland.... just one hospital that performs a procedure that people die waiting for in Canada. But only rich Canadians....
Where do you think innovations come from? Do you see any coming from Canada? the UK? France?
Why is socialized medicine so desired by the left in this country, but not socialized housing? socialized goods? or is that the next step?
Sorry. I do not want to live under socialism in any form. I will take care of my health issues when and if I have them. I don't want to take care of yours. I will continue to vote against any Socialized medicine. I may lose, but the fight continues.
Posted by Dravur on September 24, 2007 10:52 AMI wonder how many people who support the current system will find themselves in bankruptcy once they have a medical catastrophe? There is no reason you should have to file bankrupcty if you have insurance yet health care costs are now the number one cause of bankruptcy. The system sucks and needs to be changed.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 11:02 AMIf you want free medical care and a pass on things. The answer is sooooo simple. Just move south , sneak across the boarder after you change your name. Then as Raul Sanchez Cortez Hernandez Vasquez Rodriguis, you can have free medical.
Posted by Reality on September 24, 2007 11:08 AMMany people with insurance pay hundreds of dollars a month. No tax increase will ever equal the $800 I used to pay.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 11:09 AMOnce again John II has mentioned women in a negative light.
This man can`t discuss the weather without a snipe at the ladies.
I`m starting to think his 'wife" is a man because no woman could stand him.
At least he is consistent.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 11:16 AMMr. Broyles said:
"But you have no choice if you need an operation to save your life."
Why not? Doesn't that depend on that choice of health insurance and financial decisions one has made?
"Under our current system, which you are fortunate enough to afford, you cannot separate the government from the insurance companies because the companies are the authors of the policies."
Right. Didn't I address that already? Eliminate the employer tax benefit and employers will get out of the health care business.
"If government has messed up the system, then it's the result of the insurance companies and their lobbying people (which your premiums pay for). It's a matter of getting money out of your pocket and into theirs."
Mr. Broyles, what are you talking about? If the government has messed things up, the government has messed things up, period. Also, you need to get over this profit thing. The profit incentive is a good thing. I earn money with the complete understanding that in order to get the things I want, I need to pay for it. It does not bother me that someone else gets my money for rendering a service for me.
"Universal health care wiil be a fact, one day, and its need will be as apparent and accepted as ending discrimination."
Whether or not it will be a reality someday does not mean it's the right thing to do. Your reference to ending discrimination is puzzling.
"You can complain about choice and cost but you're paying for everyones healthcare already and the middle man is making a profit off of the misery of others."
Mr. Broyles, you are emoting. I'm going to politely ask you to back up your claims with some kind of logical and rational reasoning.
How am I already paying for everyone's health care? Yes, other people in my insurance group influence the price I pay; how is that different from other people influencing how much I pay for a new house? Again, let's return money to taxpayers and allow them to pay for minor medical services without involving insurance or government.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 11:16 AMDravur,
I can't drive but I still can choose what kind of car I buy and what type of insuance I want. Collision, liability, broken windshield, flat tire, road service etc. I can also choose to live in a 1,000 sq. ft. house with a coal stove and a woodpile or a 50,000 sq. ft. one with a wet bar and swimming pool and I what I want to insure in and about that house including an umbrella policy. But a medical emergency is not a choice. I can't say, no. I don't want that surgery I need. I might even be unconscious!
As for Rosen, neither he nor I said "free healthcare" was a good idea. As we all know, healthcare isn't "free". We are paying for each other already. He just conceded that the current system is failing and some universal plan was inevitable and I agree.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 11:32 AMthere you have it folks. listen to stan and sharon that a 40% increase will be less than what they pay now for health insurnace.
I am amazed at how the liberals can make so many statements to make them look so stupid to rational thinking people.
stan and sharon here is an idea for the both of you. go to work at starbucks as they have benefits and you would make more per hour than you do at wendy's.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 11:36 AMMr. Broyles mused:
"But a medical emergency is not a choice. I can't say, no. I don't want that surgery I need. I might even be unconscious!"
Mr. Broyles, take a minute (or two) to reread your last comment. Is a car accident a choice? You choose to insure your car. Why? For unexpected calamity. The same goes for health insurance. Of course when a medical emergency occurs, you need medical attention. That's why you make the choice before the emergency occurs to insure yourself.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 11:41 AMYour 46 million number is totally bogus and the product of the liberal media.
How many chose not to participate, how many were without coverage for one-singe day during the year and, thereby, became qualified to be included in the count, how many are are newcomers and are not yet particpating in America's forever upwardly mobile econo-ladder (the bottom rung is forever growing) and how many are simply not legal citizens of the USA, who are also wrongly included in the bogus 46 million number?
46 million...my buttocks!
Posted by Hank on September 24, 2007 11:55 AMNo tax increase will ever amount to $800 per month. Instead of sniping, address the facts.
Get rid of the insurance industry for health care.
Universal health care, not universal health insurance. Let the insurance workers go out into the real world and get a job where their salary doesn`t depend upon denying care to people.
Boy, the glaring ignorance on health care is amazing.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 12:04 PMFeminine histrionics...
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 12:08 PMJohn II, 100%. and going strong.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 12:30 PMSharon B,
Thank you accentuating my point about ignorance. In my most recent calculations (I didn't have ANY insurance for 10 straight years), I have paid over $100,000 in my life for health insurance and I have filed claims for about $6,000. So, what happened to the other $94,000? It went to pay for other people's care and a tiddy profit for the Insurance companies.
As for the simple solution of employers. I AM an employer and I have to pay for my own health insurance. Not everyone has the luxury of employer provided health care. Many employers could afford to give their insured employees a $3.00 an hour increase in their pay if they dropped their insurance (But more likely they'll just give themselves a raise and a bonus). Oh, then they buy there own insurance, if they can afford the same coverage at the individual rate.
Please understand, I have insurance to cover me for most major problems. I'm just tired of being ripped off by insurance companies to pay for health care which they can refuse to provide if you read the fine print the way they sometimes do.
Also, how can anyone claim that the insurance companies and their lobbyist are not, somehow, making government policy regarding their own industry? That's plain ignoring reality or being outright naive.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 12:41 PMMr. Broyles,
You are rambling and not acknowledging any of the questions posed to you.
"Not everyone has the luxury of employer provided health care."
That makes my point about employer tax breaks. It's not fair to small businesses or the self-employed. Let's eliminate that tax break. Do you agree or disagree with that proposal?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 12:44 PMI'll pay for me but not for you,
Why are we willing to pay billions upon billions in Iraq to supposedly keep us safe from terrorists. We want to keep the American people safe from terrorism and we should ALL pay for that!
But no way should we all pay to keep us healthy!!!
"no way should we all pay to keep us healthy!!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 24, 2007 12:44 PM
That's right, lefty. We don't want to waste money keeping dumocrats like you on life support.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 12:47 PMIn October I will be given the opportunity to buy insurance through my current employer. Unfortunately, I won't be able to because I will be responsible for 100% of the cost. In order to cover my family it will cost me $1024.00 a month, more than my rent payment and my car payment together. Bottom line, health insurance is just another way for the rich to get richer. The system needs to be totally re-vamped, however, I do agree that the thought of having the governments thumb in yet another pie is very scary. Too bad that most of the people posting are too busy pointing out the flaws to everyones arguments and not offering any real solutions huh?
Posted by Uninsured and staying that way on September 24, 2007 01:11 PMJohn II,
I agree that getting rid of tax breaks would certainly help level the playing field for small businesses and individuals, but that's all about health INSURANCE. I'm talking about health CARE. Do you have a compelling interest in the heath insurance industry?
Sharon B,
Am I wasting my time?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 01:26 PMMr. Broyles,
I don't think so. You've been talking about "INSURANCE" all along. Here's a quote from you a few posts ago:
"Thank you accentuating my point about ignorance. In my most recent calculations (I didn't have ANY insurance for 10 straight years), I have paid over $100,000 in my life for health insurance and I have filed claims for about $6,000. So, what happened to the other $94,000? It went to pay for other people's care and a tiddy profit for the Insurance companies."
I still don't understand your problem with companies earning a profit.
When you buy insurance, you're paying for the comfort of knowing that if something bad happened, you'd be covered.
Isn't it nice to drive your car knowing that if you got into an accident, insurance will help pay for the damages? Even if you never got into an accident, you paid for the comfort of being able to drive.
The same goes for health insurance. It's all about risk management. You may rarely use health insurance, but it sure is nice to know if something happened, insurance would kick in to help pay the cost. That's what you're paying for: peace of mind.
Why should that be free? Financial firms purchase credit default insurance. If they spend $20 million on bonds, they'll pay $1 million to insure their purchase against default. If the bond does not default, the firm does not feel like it was ripped off. It paid for the reduction in risk and that's what it got. The same mentality should be applied to health insurance.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 01:55 PMjohnnie 2 boy: "I still don't understand your problem with companies earning a profit."
Not everybody bows to the holy grail of unfettered profits derived from a monopolistically protected industry at the expense of other people like you do.
You would pry the gold fillings from a dying patient for profits -- before he was dead.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 02:02 PMAnonymous Coward revealed:
"Not everybody bows to the holy grail of unfettered profits derived from a monopolistically protected industry at the expense of other people like you do."
Which "protected industry" are you referring to? By the way, wouldn't a single-payer government-run health care system be a monopoly?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 02:10 PMI understand your argument, John II, but we disagree on the need. Apparently you believe that insurance for a car is the same as insurance for health. And I agree, to a point. That's the way it is. But I don't think that's the way it always should be. Owning a car is an option. I know most people don't realize that but you could also opt to take a bus, a bike, walk, whatever. You can also buy the Cadillac health insurance policy. You know, private room, cell phone, personal nurse etc. But basic healthcare, treatment when you need it, in my opinion, should not be relegated to the simple formula of risk assessment. Some people, believe it or not, cannot afford health insurance, especially at today's rates. They are not going away and their numbers will increase (see: Uninsured and staying that way, above). They'll go without (a real scary risk, for sure) rather than go broke. If they get sick and can't afford to pay the bills they'll go bankrupt and guess who pays for their care? So we all pay for each others health care. Whether through premiums, savings accounts, wages, taxes or the misfortunes that impact the economy. You will get sick or die. It's not a choice or option. I'm just facing the reality of the situation. Universal health care is coming and you might want face that fact. You don't have an option. It may not be what you want, but if you need more than the basics, you can always buy insurance for what it doesn't cover.
By the way, the reason I asked about any "compelling interest" is that my son-in-law, who's in the insurance business, is vehemently opposed to universal health care. But to him and his company, health insurance is their gravy. They have to convince everyone health insurance is necessary or they have to try to sell real insurance, based on risk. But he's going to have to look for another job, when he moves to N.C., so maybe his outlook will change his view.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 02:46 PMStan B. Yes you are wasting your time, but who knows. Maybe someone will think in a different way about this.
But what I did was say that no tax increase could equal the $800 I paid each month and look at the replies.
I sense fear behind a lot of the insulting posters. Fear of the unknown and an inability to trust someone other than insurance companies with their health care decisions.
Sure, you can go to a different doctor and pay your own money, if the company refuses your care.
Those that have what they think is a good health care system in their lives, are frightened like rabbits that somehow that will change and not for the better. Better, for them that is.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 02:56 PMMr. Broyles,
"Owning a car is an option."
Not in my world. Even if it were an option, how does that change the need for insurance?
Sure, we will all get sick and die someday. How does that diminish the need for health insurance? We don't know when we'll need medical attention nor for what illness or incident. So, insurance is needed.
Your argument that health insurance is expensive is exoteric; We all know this. I guess, when insuring your life and the life of your family, we should expect it to be expensive. There are ways to reduce the medical and insurance costs. I listed on this thread. Any comments on any of those suggestions?
By the way, 4.5% of Americans are unemployed. Should the government employ them? Or are you satisfied with a low number such as 4.5%?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 03:05 PMSharon B. said:
"But what I did was say that no tax increase could equal the $800 I paid each month and look at the replies.
The reason no one replies to that assertion is because it's based on your opinion and cannot be proven one way or another.
What is your household income? I have a feeling that you probably pay very little in taxes. So, no, your taxes would probably not rise by $800 a month. But, someone is going to pay for you if you won't. It will most likely be me. Is that fair? Why should I have to pay for your health care? Maybe you're a fat slob that never excercises. Maybe you're white trash and churned out a lot of babies with multiple partners. Maybe you drink too much. Maybe you use drugs or drive like a maniac. Sure, you may benefit from universal health care. But, is that fair to me?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 03:16 PMOh no, John II has feelings about my income. Masculine histrionics.
Now, sweet pea, you know I will never defend myself or rise to your challenges, so why do you keep trying?.
Sharon baiting just does not work, hon.
Without knowing what your income is, how can anyone determine what your taxes will be? You see the dilemma and why no one responded to your repeated comments?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 03:33 PMJohn II,
It's not all about you. It may not seem fair to you but we will all have to pay for you, if something doesn't go as you planned or wished. I hope this never happens, of course, but if it does all of the insurance in the world won't be of much use if you wind up a quadrapalegic in a nursing home like my late brother did.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 03:35 PMMr. Broyles, will you pay for me? Will Sharon B.? I highly doubt it. What you are asking for is not that we all pay for each other. You are asking for one segment to pay for another.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 04:20 PMJohn II save your imaginary life descriptions for another day. I would like to know how much people are paying now, and how much more or less they might pay. This is not an invitation for another mano e mano with you.
You take everything so damn personel. "Why should I have to pay for your health care" you whine.
This is not about just you.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 04:21 PMWhy don't any of you in the Pro-Socialized medicine camp ever answer the hard cutting questions or provide solutions to the potential and real drawbacks of socialized medicine?
I refer you to "A"'s post at 9:01am. A lot of valid points are made -all of which go unchallenged.
Why is that? - because you know this will be the case but that just doesn't give you the warm fuzzies that taxing us to death for a lame system would give you.
Also I've seen quite a few asking how in the world the Pro crowd would entrust their own health to a governent that cannot control costs and viability in social security, medicare, medicaid, the VA, and public education?
I suppose the answer is just raise taxes some more to pay for any drawbacks otherwise rationing of the care will take hold.
You all bellyache about the millions of uninsured, yet when asked how to keep the government from rationing care for the advanced stages of cancer, or heart disease when the costs start to spiral out of control.(and they will since everyone touts it as "free") Once again all we hear are crickets.
The pro crowd would be absolutely appalled if they were told "ok, since you are in the advanced stage of cancer we are terminating your treatments as all hopes are lost, go home and die"
It may go the way of the current system in Russia where they just don't tell you that you have cancer and send you home with some tylenol and if you call for an ambulance they don't send it because you are terminal.
I know a lot of you myopic liberals believe this will be a great system but once you start it, you can't stop it as has been shown with social security. Just look to the countries that have socialized medicine and "supposedly" have better health care the us, when in actuality their quality of life is lower, their taxes are exorbitant and their wait times are excessive (LOOK it up - this is a fact)
Somebody challenge "A" on his/her topics - I doubt there are any challengers because they are all valid.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 05:07 PMJohn II,
Damn right, I'll pay for you and so will everyone else. This pool or segment you cling to doesn't exist. Health care costs are fungible. We all pay for the failures in one another's health care and their Plans. It's another charade, staged by the insurance companies, to give you a feeling of being special; of being different. Go ahead and engage in the prescribed self-deception created especially for you by he health insurance industry. Just like everyone else.
Sharon B, you're right. A waste of time.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 24, 2007 05:12 PM"Health care costs are fungible. We all pay for the failures in one another's health care and their Plans. "
Not exactly, Mr. Broyles. Health care costs are not fungible. Some folks have much higher costs than others.
This argument that we are already paying for each other's health care is specious. In any industry, the actions of some consumers affect the cost for others.
You are missing the big picture. There are fundamental changes to the way the system works when we replace limited demand with unlimited demand. Part of the problem with rising medical costs is that folks are using their insurance to pay for minor expenses. Instead of reserving insurance for unexpected calamity, folks are using insurance for routine doctor visits and other minor expenses. So, what happens? Consumers do not care what the doctor charges because they know a third party will pick up the tab.
Would you take your car in for an oil change and charge it to your auto insurance without even looking at the bill? Of course not.
The ultimate goal is to put money back into the hands of taxpayers. Give them the opportunity to save and invest medical savings so they can afford and reserve health insurance for the big stuff. Why do you oppose that?
"Sharon B, you're right. A waste of time."
Mr. Broyles, you are wasting your time if you babble on and on without thinking about the words you write. Don't emote like a woman. Use your manly brain to logically think through the problem without resorting to petty grievances about profit.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 05:41 PMMr. Broyles boldly declared:
"Damn right, I'll pay for you and so will everyone else."
If that's what you think, you have a lot to learn about the system you are proposing. Everyone else will not pay. Will taxes be raised to pay for a universal health crare system? Yes. Will taxes be raised evenly across the board? No. Will my taxes rise much more than Sharon B.'s? Yes.
Be a man, Stan. Think like a man: be logical; research the issue before expounding on it. You don't have to agree with me. But, at least acknowledge the facts before making bold, specious claims.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 05:49 PMJohn 2 said: "you are wasting your time if you babble on and on without thinking about the words you write. Don't emote like a woman. Use your manly brain to logically think"
Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, misogyny...or perhaps, misogyny by a miscreant...
Posted by on September 24, 2007 05:54 PMNo, not misogyny. I don't think Mr. Broyles hates women. I think he thinks like them. It's called the pussification of the liberal American male. Look how he keeps asking for support from Sharon B. Be a man, Stan.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 06:21 PMJohn 2: Nice try el flako...but I was referring to you as the perpetrator of misogyny by a miscreant. Your a racist bigot, so we're not surprised that you think your a real man and others aren't worthy of you or you pseudo intellect.
I know, if it wasn't for what's between our legs there would be a bounty on us, yada yada yada
Posted by on September 24, 2007 06:29 PMI don't think telling a grown man not to act like a woman is misogyny.
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 06:37 PMJohn 2: "I don't think telling a grown man not to act like a woman"
Please enlighten us old grand wizard, what is wrong with a woman that makes our thought process so inadequate compared to a man's?
If you insult a man by calling him a woman you are denigrating the worth of women - misogyny by a miscreant.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 06:46 PMWomen are physically weaker and prone to emote rather than express themselves rationally and logically. It is an insult to compare a man to woman just as a woman would hate to be called a man. If that's misogyny than virtually every man is guilty of the charge. Did I really have to explain that to you? Did you think men and women were the same?
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 06:53 PMHere is the famous French health care system. That number is only 8 times Katrina, so let’s just ignore it, or blame Bush.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
Posted by Uno on September 24, 2007 07:07 PMJohn II is that your income, or your professional wife's income? Hmmm, maybe we see the root of your problem here.
Well, the root of one of your problems.
Pussification, reverse that and you get, what.? The mouseification of the American women. ? those dykes.
That blew up my spell check!
Posted by Sharon B. on September 24, 2007 07:16 PMCuban health care; “Abortion rates, which are high in Cuba, increased dramatically during the 1980s, but had almost halved by 1999 and declined to near 1970s levels of 32.0 per 100 pregnancies. The rate is still among the highest in Latin America and also one explanation for the low infant mortality rate.” So, if 100 out of 100 got abortions, why, that would cut the infant mortality rate to 0. WHO loves stuff like this.
“Cuba compulsorily tested thousands of its citizens for HIV. Those who tested positive were taken to Los Cocos and were not allowed to leave.” – now that’s one way to handle it, Cuban style.
JohnII said ” We spend more because we make more. We also spend more on our cars than other industrialized countries. We have a much higher per capita income.”
John, I must be missing something because that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Why would a higher income and spending level on cars etc. mean that what Americans pay for healthcare be higher for the same or lower outcomes than comparable countries?
For double the price, you don’t seem to even have parity on infant mortality and many other metrics on healthcare.
Given the amount of spending, the metrics and outcomes and patient experience should be far better than anyone else in the world. The US should be acing every metric on the board.
"Why would a higher income and spending level on cars etc. mean that what Americans pay for healthcare be higher for the same or lower outcomes than comparable countries?"
How do you measure the outcome to be lower?
"For double the price, you don’t seem to even have parity on infant mortality and many other metrics on healthcare."
Is IMR directly tied to spending? Is it possible that cultural matters such as drug and alcohol abuse contribute more to IMR than other nations? The same goes for life expectancy. Culture matters. Are you comparing similar cultures? Or do you presume that American culture and diversity is the same as the populous nation of Andorra?
"Given the amount of spending, the metrics and outcomes and patient experience should be far better than anyone else in the world. The US should be acing every metric on the board."
Not exactly. Culture matters just as much or more than spending. Furthermore, I don't agree with your assumption that our patient experience is worse than other nations. In fact, WHO ranked the USA as number one in the only measure of health care quality in their infamous study. Also, what is counted in the total health care spending figure? 45% of that total is a bloated and inefficient federally managed health care system (medicare/medicaid).
Posted by John II on September 24, 2007 08:14 PM"In October I will be given the opportunity to buy insurance through my current employer. Unfortunately, I won't be able to because I will be responsible for 100% of the cost."
What is wrong with this post?
How about, if you have to pay for it yourself, you go looking for your own policy and forget about the employer connection? How about you stop whining about what you don't have and count up what you think you want against what you really need. Don't let someone else tell you what you need. You decide and take responsibility with action instead of complaining about it.
Stan and Sharon
Insurance is for the major expenses. HSA will permit health care as a deduction instead of giving that benefit to the employers give it to the people. How about we give everyone in the country 5000 dollars in a credit card for health care expenses? Eliminate the Medicare and Medicaid programs and replace it with the "credit". Since no one needs to apply or fill out papers or be qualified or , or , or.. It will eliminate thousands of government paper pusher jobs. It will also eliminate thousands of private sector jobs in the medical profession as the money will no longer be spent on filling out reams of forms...It will allow health care to be paid for in cash. Also let the government either sell an insurance plan or contract with insurance companies based on a government standards and minimums with a cost limit . You will need to suffer through another ten thousand e-mails, junk mailings and annoying commercials because it won't take the insurance industry long to set up a bunch of plans just to make a profit from those benefits.
There IS need for tort reform but no need to cap malpractice awards. Just put a limit on the amount the lawyers can receive. If the lawyers can't cash in, the frivolous lawsuits won't be filed. By making the punitive damages an award to the state and limiting the windfalls given to the attorneys. There is no need to give the "injured" person(s) more than a limited punitive damages added to the actual damages (lost income and future income are included in this).
If you doubt that there are lawyers in this for the money, spend some time watching TV. You will see lawyers trolling for victims who didn't know they were victims until they met the lawyer.
Many hospitals and doctors over test and over treat patients in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. Add those costs to medical care before you reject the tort reforms.
It might be cheaper to spend 300 million times 5000 a year to deal with health care. 15,000,000,000. Add in administrative costs and startup as twice that and you have a solution that eliminates the governmental meddling with costs and the delays that create a need for doctors to maintain a large accounting department.
Those who hate the insurance companies and those who hate the government should be satisfied because there will be a chance for their favorite solution to be tested by the market and the people.
Posted by momma y on September 24, 2007 11:03 PMmomma, and clinics all over the place, ones that stay open nights, weekends and God forbid, holidays when the docs are out.
Now then, what do we do with the neo-nates and their care? Just born and using up millions of dollars.
John II that infant mortality rate you keep mentioning, how is it affected by drug, alcohol and tobacco use.
Are you just asking the question or do you know.
All the sites I looked into listed genetic problems for most of our infant mortality. But if someone suggests we abort to stop having babies that will die in a few, very expensive, days, can we do that? Interesting dilemma.
Some nations ration health care at the end of life, I may look into how they handle cost for neo-nates.
I don`t have a favorite care plan, but what we have now pleases the doctors and the pharmaceuticals the most, oh and the insurance industry.
Imagine our money going in taxes to a system of people not paid to refuse care. Imagine our doctors and their staff freed from the hours and hours and phone calls for ever to insurance companies. Same with the hospitals.
HSA`s sound good, more clinics and more suggestions.
Not so much emotional name calling.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 25, 2007 12:23 AMhillarycare will touch every american,by screwing every american.
Posted by Keith on September 25, 2007 09:02 AMI see no-one is willing to try and challenge "A"s post.
Sharon B. is a master at re-directing the issues, and getting people to pursue Ad Hominum attacks when discussing the complicated questions around universel medicine. People who want to discuss percentages, yada,yada,yada, will take up most of the thread and divert the REAL issue of the subject matter...especially when it comes to socialized anything.
Anyone who posts with valid points will be completely ignored by the anti-universal zealots, so they can post their long drawn out percentages and points.
I have seen Sharon B. and others of her ilk do this time after time on these Letters to the Editor. Neat trick! It always works huh Sharon B.?
Be assured if Universal medicine becomes a horrid fact in America the first ones in line wailing about the medical neglect and atrocities will be Sharon B. and all of her liberal buddies.
All you misguided, pro-universal, medicine advocates,( unless you are very rich) will suffer right along with the rest of us( what "A" calls) "peons"
Oh, and Sharon B. I really dont need one of your cutsie one-liners in response.
Posted by Realist on September 25, 2007 10:45 AMRealist, thanks for the kind comments that I am a master and manage to re-direct entire threads to my evil ends.
Where are your remarks on the ideas I posted?
If you are also a master as well as I am, then address each of my suggestions and answer all my questions or shut the hell up about me.
Now wasn`t that better then a one liner?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 25, 2007 12:07 PMDid you tell me to"shut the hell up" Sharon B??
Sharon B. wrote" now sweet pea you know I will NEVER DEFEND myself or rise to your challenges, so why do you keep trying?"
"Sharon baiting just does not work hon."
It just did!! Hon!
Posted by Realist on September 25, 2007 01:36 PMSharon B - How would you feel about the government mandating you to undergo certain examinations for preventive measures?
Do you think its ok for a governement bureaucracy to be able to force you into medical treatment?
Posted by KW on September 25, 2007 01:57 PMJohn lI is the sweet pea. Not you, you are just a grumpy sour pickle. And I loved saying that to you. The shut up was conditional, if you answer my points on health care and discuss the issue like a grown up, you can talk. It is up to you, pickle.
KW badly and yes is you are a homicidal paranoid scizzo.
Did`t the gov do that to the TB patient, make him be examined and undergo treatment.
You just have to be more specific here.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 25, 2007 05:37 PMWhy don't you address "A"s post Sharon B?
Are you afraid that single-payer is in fact what he/she posted??
Name calling is infantile and your silly reply sheds a bit of light about you as a person.
Pickle, A said 'I don`t have all the answers, right, all he had were opinions, long lines, inadequate care by indifferent doctors. etc.
This you needed answered so badly?
did the venerable A have some suggestions you like? Do you have any?
You may not have noticed, but I did not defend or explain myself to you either John II wannabe.
And once again you didn`t address anything I wrote, so shut the hell up. It was your choice you know.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 12:36 AMSharon B - My questions stem from Edwards version of universal cre.
Edwards boldly said that not only is coverage "not an option," but also that many proceedures will become mandatory including mamograms. You would no longer be in charge of your body under his plan.
So I ask the questions again, how would you feel about the government mandating you to undergo certain examinations for preventative measures?
Do you think its ok for a governement bureaucracy to be able to force you into medical treatment?
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 09:26 AMSharon B.
Do you or do you not think a plan that eliminates the paperwork and meddling while putting individuals charge of and responsible for their health care choices is preferable to both our current system and the socialized medicine model where the decisions are made by the government or their proxy?
It is far more practical and beneficial to let people make their own choices. I suggested an outline of a plan that would make it possible for everyone to be covered and able to afford health care but not depending on someone else to make the choices.
It would be evenly administered aross the board which eliminates both the incentive to cheat and the necessity to keep a large staff on hand for paperwork and verification. There would be a need for fraud prevention and a staff whose only purpose was to deal with that issue.
I learned from experience that if you have a system that does not require pre-authorization or set qualifications to be met to receive a service you will have a very low level of maintenance and a high usage rate.
I was in at the very beginning of para-transit at Yellow Cab. Only qualification was proof of age and registering for the service. We were able to provide the service for several hundred people to receive a free door to door ride for health care or grocery shopping four times a month.
A government agency went nuts because we weren't imposing a stricter system qualifying people on the basis of income. They imposed that layer of nonsense and the amount of money appropriated remained unchanged. The number of trips per person dropped to two a month. No other changes. None of the people in the group had incomes above the limits that were imposed. The fund were moved from being used to provide the service to being used to provide paperwork to satisfy government.
That is the result of government meddling in just about everything. In Medicare and Medicaid the result has been the skyrocketing costs combined with a drop in the care levels.
No system will solve all problems. The best we can do is use the most valuable resource we have, our own initiative and creativity, to deal with the problem. That means no one will be able to sit back and let Daddy Sugar do the work and pay the bills. Some will find a way to take advantage of the system. The final argument I will offer is that I trust people more than government or corporations. That is why I want them to be in charge.
mommy, at 11:03 I answered some of your suggestion by saying and also, meaning I agree.
KW i do not want the government mandating health inspections for me.
No one has taken the time to read what I wrote about neo-nates.
I do not have a preferences for overhauling the health care system, mostly I ask questions to see what ideas people have. I have only stated my dislike of the insurance industry.
KW, what set Realist off like that?
And why do you think I love Edwards plan?
There is way to much jumping to conclusions on these forums.
mommy, I had a eye problem and the doctor said don`t take aspirin or anything like it and no Tylenol either. I said can you give me Vicodin, and he said no, because of the FDA. Seems I am not an established patient, and the pain in the eye doesn`t warrant that kind of treatment.
Now, here is an area of government intrusion that infuriates me. Without the FDA I would have been given one little bit of relief.
Its not like I am Rush L. Looking for massive amounts of pain killers.
The paperwork and meddling is from the insurance companies. I know of doctors offices where they have found ways around this, ways to get payment for treatment and meds for people, but they sure would like less hassle.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 10:51 AMMomma y now here's a lady who does not think freedom is a dirty word.
Give it up Sharon B. Your foolish responses show little imagination and are in fact.. very boring.
Sharon B - I wasn't thinking you were an Edwards fan. My post was to point out the very real dangers associated with having the government run our healthcare system.
I haven't seen anything in Hillary's plan mandating screenings or treatments but with her ideology being so closely aligned with the far left and Edwards, I can't imagine trusting these policies would not be replecated at some point before completing her final draft.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 01:13 PMKW, my references to the TB patient are from watching him and one other man involuntarily confined for the disease.
In the future, what do we do with people like these? With more and more drug resistant virus and bacteria, someones health plan will have to cover this area of forced health care and treatment. So far it is only a small problem.
Should we continue to spend millions of dollars for premature babies?
The taxpayers now pay this, no young couple can. Any pregnant lady can have a preemie.
When someone mentions a different kind of health care program we are told that health care will be rationed or is rationed in Canada and Europe. No one tries to scare us by mentioning what we already pay with our taxes for those little ones born with multiple problems.
Can`t talk about only one area of health care to scare people about nasty socialism, when we already have it for babies.
Isn`t the millions paid for preemies socialism too?
Mommy, you talk about meddling, who is meddling? That paperwork and meddling is from insurance industries.
Have you noticed that large scale fraud is often perpetrated by doctors, clinics and hospitals, and not by individuals?
The day my grandmother died the nursing home was billed for a foot treatment from a doctor who wasn`t even there that day.
The government has never meddled in my health care, but then I have had many a fight with AARP, before I dropped them.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 02:19 PM