- Gore a world-class snake-oil salesman
- Warming a real threat
- Denver, mayor reward incompetence
- What a sorry bunch of politicians
- Dems should take new look at fiscal votes
- Unworthy comment
- Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
- More recreation research needed by writer
- Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
- Just lower the tax rates
Health care cost & concerns
Letter to the editors...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a vision he called the “Second Bill of Rights.” One of the rights in his plan was the right to health care.
Recently, our elected officials passed a bill that would have provided for health care to poor children.
George Bush has vetoed this bill. One of his reasons is that he does not want government in the health care business. I believe George Bush’s veto is not only a mistake, but against the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Medicare, a government run health care program has administrative costs of about 3%. Private for profit health care businesses have an overhead cost of 20 to 30% - and often includes annual compensation of top executives in the millions and in one case billions of dollars. I do not want my health care decisions to be made with a profit motive influencing coverage decisions.
Some say the “free market” will control costs. The free market is good for some things; if I want a toaster and get to choose between a $10 and a $50 toaster based on features offered - that is not a life affecting decision.
How will I decide between a $100 procedure and a $500 procedure for my sick child? Will I ask my wife to call at least 3 ambulance companies to get the best price should I ever need a quick ride to the hospital?
I want the best standard of care for my family and myself. I want the same for you and your family, and the single mother, and her children, down the street, and the homeless man on the corner. If readers feel the same, join me in writing letters.
This letter has not been edited.
Mr. Worford, I could not agree with you more. The current health care system could not be run more selfishly or carelessly by any universal system. The idea behind our current system is based on profit motives and not a person's well being.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 02:14 PMLets just enforce the original Bill of Rights. We do not need a 2nd bill$$$. FDR has already done enough damage to our rights and freedoms. Do you have problem with the fact you do not have a credit card from the goverment on which you can have anything you want. This may be a suprise to you, BUT the Goverment only has my and all others tax dollars. I do not want to pay for your health care, food, house, car or anything else, earn it or go to the country of your choice.
JW
"Medicare, a government run health care program has administrative costs of about 3%."
Yes and you get what you pay for. Medicare, by its own admission, pays out millions of dollars a month in overpayments and to dead people. Reason, not enough employees to monitor and control the system. More employees means more money for salaries, buildings, utilities, etc. A priviate sector company run like Medicare would go out of business.
What percentage of your income are you willing to give the Government for universal health care that has minimal cost control and unchecked spending?
Posted by on October 19, 2007 02:30 PM2:30 , What percentage of my income am I willing to give to the government for universal healthcare?
NONE!!!!!!
And for the rest of you stay out of my for profit healthcare, I like my healthcare company,I get the healthcare I need.Just because you don't doesn't give you the right to take away what is working for my family.
It doesn't give you the right to demand that my family pay for your healthcare.
Pay for your own and leave my family alone .We worked hard for what we have and have achieved. We are not rich in money,but all our needs are being met by guess who?
US!!! we work for what we want ,I'm tired of the entitlement mentality. You are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Which means if you are alive,get off your ass and work for what you and your family needs and keep your hands in your pockets not mine!
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on October 19, 2007 03:01 PM2:30,
Thanks for mentioning the government waste. Any healthcare should be managed strictly & properly. The waste we are exposed to is intolerable. The main thing wrong with the Medicare system and the policies that guide it, is they are being directed by many people don't care about it or actually want it to fail. I believe that insurance executives look at the bottom line (and their own purses) and that's why our heath care costs about twice as much (or more) as any other industrialized country in the world but our delivery system is not #1. Pay for performance and get rid of the middle men.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 03:08 PMAMEN
Posted by JW on October 19, 2007 03:09 PMI take it all of you "no socialized medicine" fanatics are OK with your elected federal officials getting this kind of health care?
Or is that fit right in with your "screw you, I've got mine" attitude?
Posted by on October 19, 2007 03:21 PM"...earn it or go to the country of your choice. "
That doesn't make ny sense for children, unless you want them to be employed somewhere. It's been proven they make good coal miners (don't need to build the tunnels as large) but I don't thnk I'd want one driving a semi down the interstate while sitting on a phone book.
Posted by Mac on October 19, 2007 03:22 PM"I do not want to pay for your health care, food, house, car or anything else, earn it or go to the country of your choice.
JW"
Another one of these "my way of the highway" kind of guys. I wonder if they actually expect people to leave the country because he told them to.
Of course, JW has it wrong. He has been paying for other people's needs ever since he started paying taxes. If he thinks a person should leave the country if it isn't being run his way, bon voyage JW.
Posted by Truth on October 19, 2007 03:32 PMStan said:
"that's why our heath care costs about twice as much (or more) as any other industrialized country in the world but our delivery system is not #1."
That is simply not true. We spend more on total health care but that does not mean it costs twice as much. We just consume more of it.
Also, part of the cost of total health care spending should include other factors of the economy. The unemployment rate of France is twice as high as the US. Higher taxes in France are partly to blame for this. This needs to be factored into to the total cost as well.
And Stan, if you hate the profit motive so much, why do you still give insurance companies your business? If you're so disgusted by insurance, cancel your policy and save your cash for an emergency. Otherwise, you're just a whiny, wimpy hypocrite.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 03:43 PMTruth
I did not think of Mike Worford as being a child when I posted my opinion, altho that is the type of letter a child may write. My referance to "go to country of choice" was a referance to past letters which have noted what great health plans, France, Canda etc have. Yes I have been paying for FDR's and all other goverment give aways for over 50 years.
You still have not explained to me why I should have to pay for you. You seem to believe that you have a right to my money, money that I earned through my hard work and preserverance. I choose to educate myself and find work. You and others though would rather suck of the tit of the American taxpayer. You fail to realize that not one single social program ever proposed by the government has worked. I have seen and been treated in those so called socialist paradise hospitals of Canada, Germany, and Great Britian and received less than great care. You must learn to set priorities in you and your families life, decide what is more important cabal and a plasma t.v. or healthcare. My wife and I constantly do this on a regular basis. So grow up and be responsible for yourself and your family and quit expecting every one else to pay for you and your family.
Posted by Chris on October 19, 2007 04:04 PMFDR was a communist.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:07 PMPlease explain how a person is still a child at age 25. That is how the propasal of the current congress classifies a child. You talk about the overhead of the healthcare what you fail to realize is that the government low overhead is due to the TAX BURDEN passed on to the taxpayer. The government does nothing to earn money, by it's nature it dosn't make money. ANY MONEY the government has is TAKEN from the PRIVATE CITIZEN through TAXES. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they seen how so many Americans demand that other Americans pay for their problems by making the government TAX the people for the so called SOCIAL GOOD.
Posted by Scott on October 19, 2007 04:12 PMIf a person is still considered a child at 25 then the voting age should be bumped up to 25 as well.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:15 PMlets see there was not a veto of the program just the over bloated amount that the liberal progressivves what to add to the system and add millions of new kiddies and adults to the kids program.
so ask your self about the lies all of you libs, is there a program in place now? YES does it cover alot of adults and kids over 18 up to 25 NO. the program you are upset over would though.
if you can pay for the program through taxes on fast food good other than that F*** off as they would say at CSU
GW,
You still haven't answered the question: Do you have an interest in the insurance industry? Maybe exec, shareholder, or agent?
Name calling is not "manly".
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 04:45 PMYes, I have an interest; I have health and auto insurance. And, I do not feel like I'm getting ripped off. In fact, I like knowing that I can play hockey and if I break something, I'm covered. I also like knowing that if I get into a car accident, insurance will help pay the cost.
I don't look at paying premiums as a waste of money. I'm buying peace of mind. I'm managing personal risk.
So, yes, I have an interest in the insurance industry. I also have an interest in the food, drug, technology, financial, construction, automobile, and sporting industries. All those industries care about one thing: profit. And I'm glad they do.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:54 PMHey, whatever Mike, if a $330 billion Medicaid program is not enough, and eating up state budgets at record rates, than find other ways to manage. Bush was right to veto another wasteful government program with no oversight or limits. Medicaid, Medicare and tobacco taxes, among other sources already pay for the poor and elderly, enough is enough.
Posted by Uno on October 19, 2007 06:58 PMIf Mr. Worford wants the best standard of care for himself, family and everyone else then he doesn't want it ran by the government!
Posted by brain on October 19, 2007 07:46 PMMike, "One of the rights in his plan was the right to health care."
If health care was a right, that would make people who provide that care nothing more than slaves.
And Mike, having to choose among a variety of choices in a market driven health care doesn't mean you are required to pick one with the best price.
Even if facing a need for urgent care, just pick the first one you get to. If the life of either you or your child is at stake, are you really going to quibble if your choice turns out to be a couple of hundred dollars more than other choices?
Mike,
And, of course, if your child dies because you can't afford the price of care in the "market driven" system, you can always "properly pay your respects" by buying a nice, solid bronze, coffin for the funeral, from your friendly, and benevolent, "market driven" undertaker.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles, old boy. Mustn't quarrel with the basics of "capitalism" and its system of "unlimited free enterprise", you know. And you have dear old "George Washington" right there to remind you of it, too.
Nothing like being always guided to "think INSIDE the box", the "box" of a brain dead, and rotting, corpse from 200 years past.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 07:40 AMOld Grouch,
I'm sure you'll find a way to explain to the millions of unemployed workers and all the families who lost a child to poor medical care why you chose to convert this country to a socialistic system when it was clearly not as good as a capitalist one.
I love this liberal tactic of emotional, rather than rational appeal for their socialistic programs. But, but, but, what about the children?
The best thing for the children and for the adults is a capitalist system.
Posted by John II on October 20, 2007 08:48 AMWe can argue till the cows come home about socialized med. But there is a problem with sky rocketing healthcare costs and insurance. And more and more people every year are losing coverage. So when they get sick they either go without care or they get care at others expence. This problem is costing taxpayers and insurance cost. All I hear rightwing nutjobs rant about they don't want to pay for others. Well they are doing that anyway. So can anyone come up with a solution?
Posted by larry on October 20, 2007 08:48 AMlarry,
I have a solution:
1) Eliminate the use of health insurance, except for catastrophic care.
2) Where health insurance is used, allow it to be purchased across state lines.
3) Get government out of health care altogether.
For you that do not want to pay for others, I suppose it is ok for others to subsidize you!
When I receive explanation of benefits forms from my insurance company I see 50, 60 ,70 percent discounts applied to the health care provider. I can understand a 20-30% discount but when it is higher than that I can only assume, if the pre-discount charges are realistic, that someone else is making up the difference.
So if you really want to pay your fair share, pay the difference between that 70% discount and a more reasonable 20-30% discount.
The point I am trying to make is that we need to know realistic costs to have a reasonable discussion on health insurance, not some simplistic " I don't want to pay" jingo.
Posted by on October 20, 2007 09:53 AMGovernment interference in the health care industry is the primary driver of increasing costs.
Dave is right. Insurance is for unexpected calamity, not $80 doctor bills.
Eliminate the tax penalty for private insurance policies.
Allow consumers to purchase insurance plans from other states.
Broaden health savings account usage.
Posted by John II on October 20, 2007 11:22 AMI agree with John II on his points but It should be noted that one of the main responsibilities of the government to insure the safety of it's citizens. Interference should not be used unless it becomes a necessity. Unfortunately, sometimes it has become necessary. An industry that polices itself has a natural tendency to cover its own ass, to the detriment of those it is designed to serve and protect.
Posted by Stan B on October 20, 2007 12:51 PM"Government interference in the health care industry is the primary driver of increasing costs."
Yet another myth.
I'll recap just so the far right wingers don't forget the facts.
The US pays more money for lower quality healthcare than our global peers.
American by a vast majority want the Dems in charge of healthcare...and want universal healthcare.
The Rubs are once again obstructing legislation and initiatives with the support of the vast majority of Americans.
How does one rationalize that?
Posted by jay on October 20, 2007 10:38 PMEasy jay, your assertion is based on a lie.
"The US pays more money for lower quality healthcare than our global peers."
That is simply not true. In fact, considering how I've showed you numerous times how that statement is false, you are now guilty of blatantly lying to the folks on this forum. Even if it were true, how does it refute this statement:
"Government interference in the health care industry is the primary driver of increasing costs."
Half of total health care spending is by the government, not private industry.
Also, we have laws that prevent a consumer in one state from purchasing insurance from another state. Do you think if we removed such government interference, we'd have more competition or less competition?
Posted by John II on October 21, 2007 09:32 AMJohn I've debunked your myth may times over now.
I know that acknowledging the inconvenient fact that the US pays more money for lower quality healthcare than our global peers completely invalidates your position so I certainly understand your reluctance to admit defeat.
However...simply putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to concede the point is doing harm to your credibility here at the RMN.
It's your choice, but I suggest you rethink your tactics to salvage some semblence of relevancy here.
Once again for the cheap seats:
The highlights from the latest Commonwealth Fund Report:
"Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries"
"Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care for less money"
"The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care."
"Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person."
"According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent to 59 percent in other countries."
"The United States had the fewest patients — 84 percent — reporting that they have a regular doctor."
From the WHO report:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
Down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990, the United States currently ranks 23rd in infant mortality rate.
Down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960, the United States has fallen to rank 20th in life expectancy for women.
Down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960, the United States now ranks 21st in life expectancy for men.
Overall, the United States is ranked 67th for immunizations. Individually, immunization ranks range from 50th to 100th.
The United States ranks below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations as shown by studies on various diseases.
Despite having some of the finest-trained health care providers and the most excellent medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation, the United States still—in relation to other industrialized nations—ranks poorly(3).
1. "The World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems." www.geographic.org. World Health Organization. 9 Mar. 2007
The average ranking for the United States on 16 health indicators in a 1998 comparative study of 13 countries was twelfth, second from the bottom. The top five, in decreasing order, were Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, and Australia.
In another study of 11 Western countries, the United States was ranked last with respect to its primary care base and its per capita health care expenditures (the highest), while ranking poorly on public satisfaction, health indicators, and use of medication.
A 2000 study by the World Health Organization based on various indicators (including disability-adjusted life expectancy, child survival to five years of age, social disparities in care, experiences with the health care system, and out-of-pocket health care expenditures) found the average ranking of the United States to be fifteenth out of 25 countries.
A 1998 meta-analysis of 39 prospective studies in U.S. hospitals estimated that more than 2.2 million patients had serious adverse drug reactions in 1994, resulting in 106,000 deaths.
A 2000 report on the epidemiology of medical error estimated that about 1 million preventable injuries occur to U.S. patients each year; these include transfusion errors, adverse drug events, surgery on the wrong side, and mistaken identity.
The U.S. per capita healthcare expense of $5,635 in 2003 is over twice the OECD median of $2,307. Yet Americans are at or below median OECD levels in health quality per standard indicators
2005 OECD healthcare data, October 12, 2005 edition. Available online at http://www.oecd.org under health statistics
A recent study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that the administrative costs of for-profit hospitals average 35% of total healthcare costs, compared to 24.5% for private, non-profit hospitals and 22% for public hospitals.
Again John....you can come to terms with the fact that the US spends more money on lower quality healthcare than our global peers...or you can choose not to...but just remember what such behavior does to your credibility. Furthermore, we see again that you and your ilk on the far right are in the vast majority on yet another issue....making your minority status all but cemented on issues across the board:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would create a program to spend 35 billion dollars to provide health insurance to some children in middle-income families. Do you think Congress should vote to create that program by overriding Bush's veto, or do you think Congress should vote to block that program by sustaining Bush's veto?"
Override Veto 61%
Sustain Veto 35%
Unsure 4%
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling health care?" Parties rotated
Democrats 56%
Republicans 26%
Both/Neither 14%
Unsure 5%
"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"
One Program For All 55%
Current System 29%
Combination 3%
Neither 4%
Unsure 9%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
Now that I've once again established my position using credible, current, valid data....I'd rather not have to debunk the myth about the US having the best healthcare system in the world again.
Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 11:06 AMJohn II,
My, my, my. You tell us, "we have laws that prevent a consumer in one state from purchasing insurance from another state."
You certainly do invent your position as you go along.
Or are you going to weasel out of this one by one of those, "I didn't say that. I didn't mean that even if I said it. It means something else; but I didn't say it in the first place" forms of circular nonsense that you usually use to varnish over your inability to deal with either ideas or facts in the course of your defense of your imaginary fixations?
Where is the home office of your auto insurance company? Where is the home office of your life insurance company? Where is the home office of your property and casualty, fire, theft, wind, and home owner's policy? And, just for funzies, where is the home office of your health insurance policy? Where are these companies incorporated?
These are all here in Colorado? None of them is in another state?
Yeah! Sure!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 11:16 AMjay, no matter how many times you cut & paste flawed data, it still does not back up your assertions.
The studies you posted yet again have already been refuted. No matter how many times you post them, they are still wrong.
Posted by John II on October 21, 2007 01:55 PMLOL...still running from the data John?
I'll consider this point conceded then.
I think we're done here unless you have something to support your position.
Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 02:08 PMjay,
How have I run from the data? I refuted the data numerous times. You just refuse to acknowledge that because you've pinned your entire position on those bogus "studies".
Do you even know what measurements were used in the WHO study? Do you know the weights applied to each of those measurements? Do you know that the only measurement that actually measured any sort of doctor-patient interaction resulted in the USA ranking number one? Do you know that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are poor indicators of actual health care quality? Do you know that the only measurement of actual doctor-patient interaction, the one where the USA scored number one, received only a 25% weighting while the life expectancy measurement received an arbitrary 50% weighting? Do you know that per capita health care spending does not say what specifically the money was spent on? Do you know that those studies actually downgrade countries where citizens pay out-of-pocket for health care? Do you know that automatically disqualifies non-socialized countries?
I could go on and on about the studies you have quoted. They are extremely flawed analysis of irrelevant data. You have not even read the studies you quote. You read the headlines and stopped there.
Posted by John II on October 21, 2007 02:23 PM"How have I run from the data? I refuted the data numerous times."
"bogus studies"
Data is data John.
There are several studies and several reports referenced above. The only argument I've seen from you is the standard right wing talking points about the World Health Organization.
Try again.
I haven't seen you refute any of the data.
NONE.
Please do...because as of right now...my positions stands unless you have information from credible, peer-reviewed, valid sources saying otherwise.
Any questions?
Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 03:43 PMjay,
Uttering "data is data" is mindless and irrelevant. The conclusion drawn from the data is what I'm refuting.
I have already asked you to back up your conclusions and you refused to do so. You are playing childish games and I'm trying, very patiently, to engage you as an adult.
Calling something a "right wing talking point" is meaningless.
I can address any of the data you have presented. But, let's do it one at a time. Is there something I said about the WHO study that is not true? What specifically are you disagreeing with?
Posted by John II on October 21, 2007 03:57 PMI think we're done here unless you ahve anything even closely resembling information that supports your position.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 12:36 PMjay,
Why do you keep ignoring the points I have already made? You have not addressed them. What about the questions I asked you on 3:57? You have not addressed them.
Why the childish behavior? How old are you?
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 12:57 PMAgain...please provide info negating the conclusions made by the several studies and reports I've referenced here John or concede the point.
Do you have any questions about this format?
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 03:35 PMjay,
I already did. Numerous times on various threads where you have posted the same data. I have posted here at 2:23.
You have not answered a single question because you have no answer. You've pinned all your hopes on bogus studies and now you don't even know how to argue your way out of it. You're a fool.
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 04:15 PMOh contrar my good man. The only info you've given were the typical far right wing responses to the WHO report. I've included conclusions reached by many studies and reports in addition to the WHO report.
Relax, calm down, take a breath. You're cornered.
Again...either concede the point or post some information to back up your position.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 04:42 PMjay,
Calling my points "typical far right wing responses" is not a proper way to address them. It doesn't matter if they are typical; it doesn't matter if they are "right wing". You still have to address them in order to have a proper debate. Otherwise, you could simply label everything I say as "typical right wing" and never have to respond to anything.
I asked you what specifically you disagree with. You could not answer. So, is there no liberal response to my "right wing" response? Why won't you discuss the WHO report other than merely posting it over and over again?
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 06:23 PMjay,
Surely, by now you must have come to realize that "debating" John II is as useful, fruitful, and productive as attempting to animate the Cardiff Giant. And that, in the end, you will have just as much success as if you had expended the time, effort, and energy on the other project.
You are debating with an ideologue, one whose ideology is just as much set in stone as was that anthropoligical old joke. And both ideologue and ideology have just as much overall validity to any subject, or position, that attempts to deal with problems in the real world today, as that piece of statuary had in its day.
I really don't understand why you are wasting your time, energy, and effort on a fossilized old golem, whose dreary and tiresome old one-note theme - of being always right about everything, all the time, clear back to 1789 - has long ago ceased to have any meaning, or relevance to any topic of any importance whatsoever.
But, of course, it is your time, effort, and energy, to use as you will.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 07:02 PMOld Grouch,
How is jay "debating"? He is not debating me. I wish he would. But, all he did was post bogus studies and then refuse to go into detail about those studies. How is that a debate?
jay's method of debate is to simply label his opponent's argument as a "right wing talking point" and then ignore it. Any moron can do that. By the way, the term "talking point" seems redundant. Isn't every point a talking point?
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 08:46 PMJohn I think we're done here.
I'll consider the point conceded as you have refused repeated to substantiate your opposing position with facts of any kind.
I've given conclusions and data supported by reports and studies that you have simply refused to acknowledge.
Let's recap shall we?
The US pays more money for lower quality healthcare than its global peers.
Again....if you have information to support your position against this fact...like the information I've given to prove mine....I'd love to see it.
Otherwise...I'll consider the point conceded in my favor.
Thanks for playing
Better luck next time.
The point stands...and if you don't mind...I'd rather not go through this little exercise in futility every time I continue to bring up this poltically inconvenient fact.
SO.....speak now or forever hold your peace.
Still
Waiting
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 08:24 AM