May 19 2009
How Obama Plans to Fund Universal Healthcare
We all know that President Obama wants to enact his universal health-care plan to cover all Americans. Until now Obama and the Democrats have been eerily quiet on how they are going to fund this massive growth in government spending. Have no fear, our not so bright leaders in Washington have come up with an ingenious way to pay for the cost of Obama’s healthcare plan…
Are your ready to hear what it is? TAX SODA!!!! I thought I’ve seen everything but I guess not! Who smart idea was this? According to Stephen Ohlemacher and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated “The soda pop tax would apply to drinks sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup or other high-calorie sweeteners. That includes iced tea and non-carbonated drinks like punch. But diet drinks would escape the tax man. “ This proposed tax would also apply to beer, wine, and hard liquor. This is ridiculous if you ask me!!
The government of all things should know that high-fructose corn syrup is in pretty much everything we eat right now. The government was the one that pushed high-fructose corn syrup on the American people and now they want to penalize us for eating it?
Using tax policy to dictate what people do is the epitome of government control. Government shouldn’t’ be in the business of telling people what to eat and drink. If this idea becomes law, the only beverage that wouldn’t be taxed is water! Why should we be penalized for buying something as harmless as a soda? I’m so sick and tired of all of these big government ideas!!
There are others ways to achieve a healthier America than taxing soda and beer. How about promoting healthier eating habits, drinking soda and beer in moderation, bringing back physical education classes in public schools, etc.. This would be a hell of alot cheaper and there would be no need to tax popular products like soda and beer.
In fact if we had these ideas in place we wouldn’t need to a “universal” plan. People would be healthy, fit and would not have to visit the doctor nearly as much as we do now. The reason why America is unhealthy right now is because of lifestyle and not a lack of access to health-care! There are plenty of doctor’s offices on every corner. Even places like Walgreen’s and CVS have medical staff on hand to provide medical care and it is relatively cheap.
This proposed tax is only going to hurt industries that produce soft drinks, beer/wine and spirits. This will affect profit margins and ultimately jobs that people depend on for income. I thought the government was trying to get out of a recession not make it a deeper and longer one. People need to be taught personal responsibility not the idea that government will take care of all your problems! People need to wake up to the fact that government is dictating the way of life for business to the individuals, and to me this is a very disturbing trend. The government should stay out of people lives!!
- A suggestion for the incoming administration. Mr Obama, please fund NASA.
- “How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba - The Rational Argumentator
- “How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba - The Rational Argumentator
- HOW OBAMA CHANGES ME!!!
- What Does Universal Healthcare Mean to You?
AZ again,
This is the only industrialized nation in the world with out some form of Universal Health Care. For Americans to receive the same benefits that citizens of all other industrialized nations of the world are receiving hardly strikes me as the government taking care of all our problems. You don’t have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD has such systems in place. We are behind the times brah.
But continue to complain and resist it is your right, however, the majority of Americans want what other citizens of industrialized nations are getting. Maybe your campaign to keep us the only one of the industrialized gang who doesn’t provide health care to their citizens will pay off. Maybe someday we can be stepping over the sick and injured in the street that didn’t have the “personal responsibility” to pay an insurance company for coverage. You might want to contact some insurance companies to see if they will sponsor your blog. You’re saying all the things they want said, you might as well be getting a check for your efforts.
Respect
dsent,
Just because the entire industrialized world has these systems doesn’t mean that it is the best system. I still believe that our problem isn’t access to healthcare its our lifestyle. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the american diet is filled with junk food and over-consumption. I want to know why this isn’t even brought up in a debate. Everytime I bring up the issue, no one seems to comment on my point. I think it is a valid observation that should be debated here andat the highest level of government. I am fundamentally opposed to government intervention in our daily lives via taxes on something as innocent as soda and beer.
“Maybe someday we can be stepping over the sick and injured in the street” this is a little extreme bro. We don’t have a single payer system right now and people are not dying in the street.. Its obvious that our system isn’t as bad as people make it out to be. Like I said before it could be tweaked but it doesn’t need to be overhauled. Shoot I might contact some insurance companies lol at least they would be more open to my view lol
AZ,
Americans don’t have healthy lifestyles. The reason it is not part of the debate is because the debate is not about Americans health it is about the American health care system, those are different issues. I know from experience what it means to be with out coverage and not be able to get the surgery I needed, not related to dietary issues but trauma. My problem had nothing to do with “lifestyle”, but my problem relating to getting my surgery was directly related to our system restricting my access to health care. The reason you don’t get comments when you bring up lifestyle is because it’s nothing to do with access to health care.
No, stepping over sick and injured in the street is not a little extreme I have been in nations (not industrialized ones) but, nations that don’t provide their citizens with access to health care and that’s what I saw. And I worked 12yrs health care, 6yrs in a state ER where we saw people come in off the streets who were dying for lack of proper medical care. Their lack of insurance left them without definitive care and the ER would stabilize them and back to the streets they would go. It is far cheaper to provide them with definitive care. The cost of ER visits is much higher than doctor visits. I have also seen people with non-emergent conditions AND MANY coming to the ER for treatment because they didn’t have insurance to go to a doctor. So your taxes are going to pay MORE to treat the poor and indigent in the ER rather than at a doctor office where it is appropriate for them to be treated. I can tell you from personal experience that you are wrong when you say it’s not as bad as people say, it is worse. Saying we could “tweak” the system is really meaningless. I don’t think you listened to that link I tried to share with you. And I think you may want to consider the possibility that you don’t have as clear a view of this issue as the people working in the field. The vast majority of doctors and nurses will testify that the main problems they face are related to insurance issues. And the overwhelming majority support some form of Universal Health Care.
Now as for insurance companies being open to your views, I think you have it backwards, you are expressing the views of the insurance companies. That alone should give you pause.
Peace
dsent,
So the only way to correct our healthcare system is single payer? Isn’t there a free-market solution to this problem? I am wary of more more government intervention into our lives. I personally believe that government is not very efficent with money and when it comes to healthcare I don’t think the will be very efficent either.
I think we are looking at this problem from different levels. I think about this problem more in terms macro- economics and how it is going to effect the economy as a whole. Whereas you are talking about the healthcare system on a more micro level/personal level. Do you think this is fair assesment? I don’t know much about this issue, Ill admit that but I still want to voice my opinion on this matter. I believe that the healthcare question goes beyond access to it, but comes down to the structure of our economy and the ability to have good paying jobs to pay for healthcare. I personally don’t see anything wrong with making a profit on healthcare. If someone can provide quality healthcare at a good price, I am all for it. I think if people’s wages kept up with the cost of living and healthcare I don’t think access would be much of an issue. Maybe I am wrong its just what I believe. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Access wasn’t a problem in the 50’s and 60’s was it? Why is it now? Cost right? Back in those times people’s wages could cover private healthcare.. but from what I’ve heard wages increases have stagnated if not fallen in the past decade or two. I don’t have figures on hand but ive heard that in the news. The underlying factor behind healthcare is the economy, jobs and wages. I think our approaches to solving this problem are vastly different but I value you your opinion dsent.
I personally believe that their is a free market solution to this problem but maybe I am wrong. I just find it hard to believe that single payer is the only solution to fix our healthcare system. I value your expertise in the field, I am learning more about healthcare through my discourse with you than listening to mainstream media. Thanks for the enlightening discourse.
AZ,
My brother I would not suggest that Single Payer is the only option it is just the best one we have right now. And I will hazard to correct you, single payer does not interfere with the ?free market? it just cuts insurance companies out of the deal,(and the control the insurance companies have over our politicians is why it is not on the table) it does not give the government control of health care. To put it simply it is the same as if all tax payers had Medicare, the government just pays for health care and if they can spend our money to collect some 10,000 nuclear warheads for which there is no strategic value I think they can foot the bill to insure that our citizens are able to get the medical care they need. Those who would provide decent care at a decent price would still be there, and furthermore it would allow for the government to put pressure on those who are charging exorbitant prices for care. (Now while that could be defined as interference I think a better term is regulation and we have seen with the financial markets how lack of regulation can lead to crisis). As with Medicare the government can restrict the amount they will pay for procedures. Providers can not refuse the procedures but they can not overcharge for them, which is happening now, hence we have escalating costs for procedures because there is little to restrain providers from fleecing insurance companies which in turn leads to insurance companies fleecing tax payers by raising their prices for coverage, which is part of why costs have gotten out of control. Also, as it stands now, cost issues are why many doctors can not order tests that patients may need, because the insurance company has influence by deciding what procedures they will pay for, so if they refuse to pay and the patient can?t pay themselves often they don?t get tests they need. It is messed up to have insurance companies deciding what appropriate care is for patients; those decisions should be left up to doctors. Single Payer would not only insure that all Americans have access to the definitive care they need it would provide a means to restrict price gauging. And I would reiterate that as it stands now the Emergency Room is the Primary Care Physician for the poor, and the poor will continue to use the ER as their PCP if they do not have access to definitive care i.e. a doctor?s office. And we are presently and will in the future continue to pay for the ER to be used as a PCP for the poor. That costs WAY more than sending them to the doctor. In my years in the ER I would guesstimate that close to 85% of the cases we saw were not emergency?s they were people who had a cold or their child had an ear ache and they did not have insurance or money to pay to go to a regular doctor, so they presented to the ER where we not only had a legal responsibility to treat them but an ethical one as well. With Single Payer those folks could go to the doctor?s office where they belong and save all of us tax payers a shit load of money.
I did not intend to present my self as an expert; I simply spent a good deal of time in the field and took interest in what was happening and why we had so many non-emergent cases in an emergency room. Now the 85% guesstimate does include people with insurance that were just hysterical and showed up the minute they felt sick, but honestly a HUGE portion of the care we gave was to the poor who just had no place else to go. And that is not a cost effective way to deal with their care, and you and I are footing the bill for them to go to the ER. We could just as easily be footing the bill for them to go to a regular doctor and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper. In the ER we could not take into account the patients ability to pay for their care, it is an Emergency Room and so we MUST consider the possibility that any case that presents could be emergent, now we could triage them and then refer them to a clinic but if they didn?t have money to go to the clinic they would just represent the next day and once we triaged them we have already dipped in to the administrative budget of the ER and better to treat them now than have to reject them repeatedly until their condition actually becomes an emergency due to medical neglect. Because then the cost really goes up, more tests more drugs more care. Definitive care that is what is at issue, keeping poor people from using the ER for their doctor, and to simply reject them from doing so would mean that eventually many of them would have conditions that did escalate into emergency?s and that gets really expensive. We need to bite the bullet and recognize that providing health care to people who need it is simply the ?Right? thing to do. No one should be refused decent health care for any reason, if we do refuse people care we loose our humanity. I don?t care how many bad decisions a person has made or what kind of looser they are, if they actually need medical care it is fucked up to refuse them.
Thanx for sticking with our discourse.
Respect
Man I don’t now what is up with all the? In my text, I typed my reply in word and used apostrophes and quotations marks that when I posted it turned into? …??? I don’t know how that happened
AZ,
Something else you might want to factor into your thoughts on Single Payer. In the medical field they have a way to protect patients. You see everyone understands that the medical industry can overwhelm a person, especially when they are sick or injured. The patient will have what is called a “Patient Advocate” it can be anyone who the patient has speaking on their behalf to hospital administration and medical staff. Even the hospital will provide one to patients. But the point is, someone is in there helping the sick or injured person make sure the wheels of the medical machine don’t catch one of their arms and cost them medically.
Private insurance companies do not advocate for you, they are making money off not paying for as much of your care as they can get away with. But, when you have a democratically held body negotiating with the private administration, they have more power to get you what you need cheaper. I have seen insurance companies refuse to pay for treatments the doctor wanted to give. But the procedure cost too much. Now the same procedure would have been acceptable under Medicare but Medicare paid considerably less for the procedure than did the insurance company. Single Payer is much less about the government taking care of us and more like people taking care of themselves rather than trusting insurance companies to do it for them. Single Payer means we all negotiate with the private health care system. Together we are much more powerful to stop price gauging, and together we can prevent insurance company refusing to give us treatments that the doctor has decided are indicated.
Finally to reiterate we are already paying for the care for the indigent and poor people. But now we are paying Emergency Room rates to do it, where if we get Single Payer those rates decline since the patient will be able to go to the doctor instead of the ER, we save money. It’s a win/win situation for everyone except insurance companies.
dsent,
Thank you for providing additional information about this issue. You made a compelling case for single payer that is hard to dispute. I must say that after talking to you, I am more open to a single payer system than I was before. I do agree with you on the point of poor and indigent people using the ER instead of going to a doctor would save hospitals and us money in the long run. Preventitive medicine should be practiced in this instance. My question is, if we implement single payer system will we have to provide insurace for undocumented immigrants also? I have nothing against them but if they are not citizens of this country should we be providing healthcare? Wouldn’t a single payer system encourage more people to enter here illegally for free healthcare? I think that Increased levels of undocumented immigration would further complicate things in our country such as the labor force, the education system, prison system, etc… What do you think? I think everything is very much interconnected. I think a single payer system may have un-intended consequences that I frankly believe are not being considered at the national level. What is your opinion on these points dsent?
AZ,
Thanx for sticking with the discourse.
As for non-citizens, well they won’t have “America-Care” cards the equivalent to a Medi-care card but for all Americans. Their incentive to come here would not really change; they can already come and find emergency treatment in the ERs of this country. They will likely still seek emergent care in the ER’s. While it may not be very reassuring to you I have found in my years in the ER that undocumented immigrants accounted for a very small portion of our patients and that was in Galveston Texas (Where there are plenty of them). They are less likely to seek care for non-emergent conditions, as they are more accustom to having little or no access to health care and they have some fear of engaging the “system”, they often show up in labor when the baby is ready to pop out but outside of that it wasn’t very common. I also think until Americans are prepared to go to work in the fields for below minimum wage while getting pesticides sprayed on them as they work then we are the beneficiaries of their illegal immigration. I’m pretty glad those folks come here to pick our fruits and vegetables cause I likes my broccoli. But then I am not a nationalist. I think of human beings as a species not as nationalities. And if I saw a sick or injured person lying on the street that was clearly in need of assistance, I would never take thought of whether or not they were in this country legally, I would just render assistance.
I don’t doubt that if/when we get national health care it may have some unintended consequences, most huge programs do have unintended consequences. But the one intended consequence would be to cut insurance companies out of the game. No longer would they make profits on our need to protect ourselves from catastrophic illness, or for that matter the need for a simple surgery that would cost thousands of dollars. We as a people can decide that we pay our taxes for a reason and one of the primary reasons is so that we have access to decent health care and we don’t need a 3rd party i.e. insurance companies, to make profits on that need, we all need decent health care. Sure pay the doctor/nurse/tech/hospital but not some business that is there simply to make money and has an interest in restricting our care to save them money. Cut them out of the deal and use our collective power to negotiate with the health care system for decent prices and put doctors in charge of medical decisions not insurance companies.
Once again thank you for your contemplative replies and for actually giving consideration to what I have to say. While we often disagree I find you to be a quite reasonable person to discuss issues with, and I enjoy it.
Peace and Respect
dsent,
did you read dullahan comment about social security and medicare? What do you think about this? Dullahan does have a point. I would be interested to hear your rebuttal to his argument.
In response to your comment, if we cut ine insurance companies out of the game, that would put alot of people out of work. The people that work at these companies have lives and families to take care of. What happens to them? Would you have compassion for these people who could possilbly end up on the streets in need of healtcare? Kind of ironic right? Also, would there be a limit to how much coverage you would get from a public plan? Im sure that there would have to be a limit to what procedures that you could recieve. I.e could you get cemotherapy or a major surgery on a public plan or would it be strictly limited to lesser illness?
You say that we should use our collective power to deal with the healthcare system to get decent prices and quality treatment. How do we achieve this? Are you willing to entrust this responsibilty to a congress that didn’t read a word of the stimulus bill? Ive read your blog plenty of times and your not the type to blindly follow government to the ends of the earth. I personally don’t want to give that power to congress to dictate whats best for me or your. I believe we are well educated americans that are able to make our own decisions. To be honest im suprised that you support a single payer system lol… I too enjoy discussing issues with you and look forward to many more my friend.
AZ,
Good to see you’re still thinking about this. As for Dullahan’s comments well 1st of all he said “Now dsent wants us to universalize this Medicare..” As if Single Payer is my idea, hehehe, it’s only supported by most doctors, nurses and the general public. So he is giving me WAY to much credit, but I will pretend to be flattered. 2nd of course corporate democrats are not on board the President and Max Baucus have refused to put single payer on the table so to say that they are controlling the CBO and giving doomsday reports is of little surprise. 3rd we have an aging population of course cost will rise secondary to that fact. I read the “report”. It fails to address the fact that rising health care costs will be eaten by someone, and never mentions Single Payer. Look at this quote from the article he presented “Medicare pays hospitals 30 percent less than private insurers pay for the same services and physicians 20 percent less.” I not only worked in hospitals from New Orleans to California I also coded medical charts for reimbursement. I can tell you they are ripping people off, for more than 30% and 20% respectively. That answers your question about how the government can get better rates. Also I have never worked in a hospital that did not take Medicare. So the scare tactics about how they don’t accept it are BS.
What is noticeably absent from this discourse is the fact that insurance companies are for profit organizations. Now if we factor in the cost of their profits the escalating cost of health care only increases more. The point is that health care costs are out of control. And to have a 3rd party that profits on your need for health care only serves to further increase the cost. Whether it be paid by taxes or out of your pocket.
Sure people at insurance companies may have to find other work, the economy changes, that’s the nature of life. But at least they will have health care.
As for my support of Single Payer it is only because it’s the best option NOT on the table. I think health insurance is a parasitical industry, that thrives on people’s need for protection from illness and injury. And even with single payer they will find a niche to insure those who want additional coverage. Like I said we pay for the poor either way and the cost for our care is going to be either the base cost or the base cost plus the profit for the insurance companies. We will pay either way. I just don’t see a need to pay insurance companies. Nor do I want them making decisions about what care I can receive.
As to the limits placed on a national system, only time will tell, but the point of such a system is to insure that everyone gets necessary care and at the lowest cost. Who knows how it will all work out.
And as for the budget and increasing deficits, maybe if we didn’t spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined we could free up a bit of cash. Stop having wars of aggression and start tending to domestic needs.
Respect and thanx for the discourse
Not too sure about all this health care. It seems that they are considering a VAT which would accumulate a 30 percent tax by the time it gets to the consumer…and it’s all kinds of products they are talking about, including cars (who would have guessed that). The whole issue is giving health care to those who cannot afford it, and with the VAT they would be taking more money out of some of the same people’s hands. But not to worry, they are trying to get this thing passed by saying that it might eliminate Federal Income Tax–someday. Yea, the Texas lotto, instituted under Anne Richardson, has never put one lying nickel towards it’s intended goal and it is still very much alive and accumulating millions each year. We need another tax, like we need a hole in the head…we don’t need health care because we’re destined to starve to death in the poverty this idiot-in-chief is setting us up to inherit.
http://gyroscope2000.today.com
Dsent, I have to agree with you on this one. Access to healthcare is a major problem, just ask all the poor and middle class people who continually lose everything they have worked for when it comes time for major surgeries and healthcare events. Poor people routinely avoid seeking treatment for even general visits for lack of insurance. This does nothing but make it worse when it comes to a healthcare crisis. People, seniors included, are paying way too much into a system that offers no protection. My mother and father in law pay hundreds of dollars in healthcare related expenses every month, have supposedly great coverage, and still pay enoromous amounts for prescriptions, some of which are not affordable at a sacrifice for something else. We deserve healthcare. The only ones complaining about it are the rich people who feel they will be taxed into paying for poor people.
dullahan,
bravo, bravo.. what a wealth of information to digest.. I wish I could add to what you said but you summed everything up very well. This is turning into a great debate. Thanks for commenting on this issue, you seem very versed in this subject.
Just an after thought, Single Payer is essentially Group Coverage, but the Group would include some 301 million people so the rate will be less. And as for arguments about which procedures will be approved, restriction on procedures is common place with insurance that’s why people often carry supplemental insurance.
Great debate guys,
dsent you are great at delivering your coutnerpoints, I always look forward to your responses. Your steadfast defense of single payer is etremely compelling. I am quite content with sitting back and watching this debate unfold. I would like to thank everyone for commenting on such a important issue
AZ,
And thanx for hosting this debae. You are correctthis is an important issue.
The problem I have with this whole idea of Universal Healthcare is that I will be taxed to pay for somebody else’s healthcare. If this system is to provide healthcare for everybody, I would have the burden of providing healthcare for myself and family, as well as somebody I have never met. If the system is to provide healthcare for only people who cannot currently afford healthcare, we have that already…Medicare and Medicaid. I haven’t had insurance in over 5 years, it just wasn’t cost effective for me to have it. When I did have it it cost me 150 every month for insurance, and then copays and contributions towards a deductible on top of that to go to the doctor or urgent care or the ER. Or if I pay out of pocket to when I got sick on average of once per year, it cost me 150 to see the doctor or 450 per ER trip. It cost less for me that way. I don’t want to have to put up money for people who over react to every cold they get.
NEWS FLASH***** There is no cure for the common cold….Stop going to the Doctor if you just have a COLD. Take a day off of work, buy some orange juice and some airborne, rest and let your body fight the cold. ***** There is no cure for the flu. You can go to a local clinic and get a flu shot for 15 bucks and that is supposed to help you prevent from catching the flu that season. Stop going to the doctor for stupid things like that and it will cut down immensly on the cost of your own healthcare.
Over the past few years America has been on this trip that everything should be fair, and everything should be equal, and every person needs to have health insurance. Guess what America, life isn’t fair, and life isn’t equal. If everybody just took care of themselves, the nation would be better off as a whole. And if you are fortunate to be very successful in life, than you have a responsibility to give back to your community. If you are very successful in life and decide that you don’t want to contribute to your community you shouldn’t have to, and shouldn’t be penalized, as immoral as that seems. It shouldn’t be forced upon you to help somebody you have never met. That’s one nice thing we have in place with our tax system. You are rewarded for giving back to your community. Having Americans getting back in the spirit of giving rather than recieving will help far more than forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do.
I don’t see Universal Healthcare as our soultion to the problem. Increasing taxes to fund this will just place a heavier burden in other aspects of life, funding retirement being one of them. The increase in taxes to fund healthcare reduces the amount of income available to set aside for retirement. This will cause people to have to work later and later in life because they have to wait longer to retire. Will the government step in there too and try to force American’s to contribute towards a fund to help with retirement. Oh wait…they tried that and look how successful that has turned out. How much of a role does the government want to take in running my life. Let me live my life the way I want to live it. If I want to reap the benefits of a successful life, I should have to work hard for it, it shouldn’t be handed to me on a silver platter the way everybody expects it now. The decisions you make in life have an impact on the quality of life you live, and you should have to live with those desicions and not place that burden on other people.
There have been many comments on this issue, and I haven’t read them all. So if you have addressed my issue I’m sorry for leaving this long comment.
Hi Gang,
Wow!
I’ve been off line for the last few days and I’ve just checked in for a few minutes to see Dsent’s response. You’ve given me a lot to digest. Unfortunately I won’t be back to continue the discourse until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
But rest assured I will rejoin you all.
Enjoy the weekend.
theunchosenone,
Ok lets review, l understand you didn’t read the entire thread but I will repeat YOU ARE PAYING FOR POOR AND INDIGENT CARE RIGHT NOW. But you are paying for it at Emergency Room rates rather than the doctors office. And thats not going to change, sorry for your luck you live in a western industrialized nation. And providing health care to citizens is what they all do, but in the US there is still a battle going on as to how to pay for that care. We are presently letting the poor and indigent use the ER for a clinic that transfers to our insurance rates and to the rates charged by providers for proceedures and treatments. Now the only difference is with Single Payer there is a national system of “insurance” that is provided to all citizens at the lowest cost. Living in a society means that some things will innevitably be “social” in nature. Everyone needs health care and I have been to countries where little or none is available and I don’t want to see US streets looking like that. Every other industralized nation provides some form of national health insurance. The US will also, its just a matter of when and what the plan is, resistance is futile. Face it we all reap the benefits of living in society, now we can gripe about having to do our part an how we don’t wantto be forced to help anyone else or we can nut up and do our part.
It’s not all about going to the MD for a runny nose. Its about difinitive care, and insuring that since you have no insurnce you wont be denied needed treatment. You dont have insurance, try to pay for a few minor surgeries without it, Americans are frequenty going bankrupt over basic medical care. Health care is no different than national defence, it is for all of us.
Dsent,
So you’re saying that the problem right now is the use of the emergency room for non-emergency issues, right? How is national healthcare going to solve that problem? If everybody has health insurance, why wouldn’t they continue to utilize the ER? My guess is that there would be limitations on what issues would be covered for ER visits. In other words, the government would decide what is an emergency or not. The government would decide how much care you actually need. If it is not a true emergency the ER would have the right to deny care and force the patient to seek a reasonable alternative whether it be a primary care physician, or going to a low cost health clinic.
ERs aren’t allowed to turn away patients right now. Should that be allowed to change when the government is in control? My guess is it will be acceptable. If it were up to me ERs would be allowed to turn away whoever cannot afford the care. That would help with the rising cost of health care more than providing health insurance for everybody inside our borders.
I hate to break it to you, healthcare is not a right, it is a privelage. There is no reason why any individual who makes the right decisions in life should not be able to afford healthcare for themselves and families. The majority of people that cannot afford healthcare now are people who have made mistakes in life. I don’t want to pay for healthcare for those people. We already have a system in place for the most needy, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why do we have to expand that coverage to everybody? We don’t!
You claim that a single payer system will provide the lowest cost healthcare. To who? To the people who don’t pay for it! I’m sorry you’ve been to countries that don’t provide healthcare to everybody who walks into a hospital or clinic. That doesn’t mean we should pay for everybody to have healthcare here. The U.S. has never provided healthcare to every citizen, and never has the streets been filled with the sick and injured who couldn’t recieve care. Never! That’s the kind of bullshit response provided to try to persuade the ignorant into buying into your beliefs. You say that every other nation has a system of national health insurance…WAKE UP…we do too. Medicare and Medicaid…are you going to just ignore the fact that we already have a government health insurance system in place?
Resistance is futile???? Are you SERIOUS??? Are you delirious? Resistance is the only way to ensure freedom you idiot. Freedom from the government deciding what endevor to take on next that will require every citizen to pay for. I’m sorry some people are more successful than others. It’s a shame, but life isn’t fair. I didn’t work my ass off going to school full time, and working full time as a nursing assistant to earn my degree to eventually make $50,000-60,000 per year only to have the same lifestyle as the guy down the street that makes $10 per hour and spends all his free time getting drunk or high, or the single mom down the street with 4 kids from 4 different dads. We all make our own decisions in life, and you should have to pay for the decisions you make, not your neighbor. We already have a system in place for the most unfortunate who cannot take care of themselves. We have welfare for the poor, we have low income housing assitance, we provide food stamps, we have disability for the disabled, we have social security for the retired and surviving children of deceased parents, we have free public education, we have low income transporation assistance, we have medicare, we have medicaid, we provide financial aid for those who want to continue their education after high school but cannot afford to, we have a military that anybody can work for and will provide you with a job for life, great benefits, and health insurance as long as you don’t break the law. When is enough enough? For you, I’m sure “enough” isn’t in your dictionary.
You want health insurance, earn it! It’s a privelage not a right. Count on yourself to provide for yourself, don’t depend on somebody else to provide for you.
theuchosen,
You said “So you’re saying that the problem right now is the use of the emergency room for non-emergency issues, right? How is national healthcare going to solve that problem? If everybody has health insurance, why wouldn’t they continue to utilize the ER?”
I hate to state the obvious but they would have insurance to go to the doctor so they would not need to use the ER. Now I understand you would rathter have them go without health care if they don’t have the money. I’m sure your $60k a year is sufficent protection, hey you are a wealthy man making 5 figures a year you are safe.. Oh wait.. lets check the facts..Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine. But you would suggest they just made bad decisions. I suggest you should make better decisions than to earn a paultry 60k a year that is chump change my brother. “Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Then you say “I hate to break it to you, healthcare is not a right, it is a privelage. There is no reason why any individual who makes the right decisions in life should not be able to afford healthcare for themselves and families.” I hate to break it to you but $60k a year aint shit. Try dealing with a serious illness on that kind of CHANGE. More than 3/4 of those bankrupted had insurance at the start of their illness. Do some homework.
Then you digress to name calling “Resistance is futile???? Are you SERIOUS??? Are you delirious? Resistance is the only way to ensure freedom you idiot.” I am saying that resistance to national health insurnace is futile. Those who are working for national health insurance are resisting, resisting the insurance lobby and their control over our government. We will get it one way or another. As for calling me an idiot, allow me to quote your most recent posting. “Everybody began life on an even playing field…” Need I say more? That is as ignorant of a statement as I have ever read. You seem to know nothing of history, current class stratification or differences in human abilities.
Finally you said “You want health insurance, earn it! It’s a privelage not a right. Count on yourself to provide for yourself, don’t depend on somebody else to provide for you.” And As you can see if you will bother to read the facts, insurance is not protection, and for that matter insurance is not counting on yourself it is counting on the insurance company. You are confusing the welfare state with the welfare of the state. You live in a nation sir. You benefit daily from what others have contributed if you don’t want to give back that is your perogitive but for me I give a damn about my country not just myself. And I give a damn about sick and suffering people if you want to turn a man in need of medical care away because he is poor then you might try a country like El Salvadore. But in the US and all industrialized nations providing health care is something we consider civilized. To bad for you if you would rather step over dieing bodies in the street than see them get the care they need. We are providing health care but it is not being done efficently or sufficently. Single Payer is about reducing costs, increasing access and preventing hard working Americans from going bankrupt over illness or injury. Again I would say DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Now I normally don’t care to respond to people who engage in name calling and such childish tactics. I love good debate but you are not providing that, you have not done your due dilligence. Learn from dullahan do some homework get some facts and grow up. Your 60k annually is small change and you are not protected, now maybe you are more afraid of helping someone else than you are of your own vurnability but those are matters of compassion and reason both of which you seem to be lacking. If I did not find this issue of importance I would not have responded to you at all, your comments were uninformed and callous. When I read that someone thinks the poor should be denied emergency care I am disgusted, plenty of children are poor and they have not had time to make bad decisions. I think you are living in a dream world if you think 60k a year and an insurance policy will protect you or your family from the economic effects of serious illness or injury.
Respect
Get the facts from those who know
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
Dsent,
Calling you an idiot was pretty childish, and after reflecting on it for a day, I would like to apologize for that. I am sincerely sorry for the name calling. That is pretty out of character for me, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion as much as another may disagree with it.
You claim that because everybody will have health insurance that they will go to a primary physician? What evidence is there to prove that to be true? That sounds great as a theory, but how likely is that? How long do you have to wait to see a primary physician now? It is rare that you can be seen the same day. Agree or disagree? Now wouldn’t the increase in traffic to primary physicians under the proposed system increase the wait time to see a doctor? Wouldn’t more people be going to primary physicians for reasons other than which they currently go to the ER for? Wouldn’t this place a greater strain on the resources available than there already is?
If you can’t be seen by your doctor, what is the next logical alternative to be seen the same day? The ER. True or false? You don’t plan on getting sick, and when you are sick you don’t want to wait 3 or 4 days or possibly a week to be seen. So what would cause people to stop using the ER? An unintended effect that is quite possible is that there will be an increase in the amount of patients visiting PCP’s, but only a modest decrease in ER visits. I highly doubt it will be more cost effective than the current system we have. People aren’t using the ER to get their annual physicals, they go to the ER because they are sick and want to be seen by a doctor.
Can you refresh my memory? When did I say that 50-60k is a lot of money? I believe what I said was that I don’t want to live the same lifestyle as somebody that makes 20k a year due to the social policies proposed by this administration. Or am I wrong? What I did say is that 60k is enough to purchase your own insurance. What’s nice though, is my wife is a nurse who also makes 50k and together we can make a nice living. How many people would claim that 100k is chump change? Tell me though, how many people in the world would say that making 60k and having health insurance is a poor position to be in? Additionally, I never said that 60k and health insurance was a guarantee against financial distress. Insurance is an instrument that transfers a predetermined amount of risk from one entity to another, and the amount of risk transferred is based on the amount of the premium charged for the transfer of risk. So if you make 60k a year, you can afford insurance, and if you have insurance, you have a certain amount of protection from the risk of not being able to personally afford a tragic health related event. If the amount of insurance that you purchase isn’t enough to cover the worst case scenario, and you have to file for bankruptcy, that is very unfortunate, but it isn’t the end of the world.
When did it become the government’s responsibility to prevent financial adversity to individuals? That’s not the government’s job, and it shouldn’t be. It is unfortunate that some may have to file bankruptcy due to hard times caused by health related issues. That is not reason enough to place the burden of the entire nations health care on the taxpayer. What do you think bankruptcy is for? If you file chapter 7, it is a discharge of all debt. As unfortunate as it is to have to file for it, it is an opportunity to have a fresh start. Never did I say that the unfortunate that have to file for bankruptcy made bad decisions. Can you tell me where that was said?
Now I may have misstated what I meant to say about people that cannot afford healthcare. I don’t believe that because you cannot afford healthcare you should be denied emergency care. What I meant to say was if you want to utilize the ER for a cold, you should be allowed to if you can afford it, and if you can’t afford it, ER’s should have the right to deny care and redirect you to an alternative. For the people who are not fortunate enough to be able to provide healthcare for themselves, there ARE systems in place for the neediest. Is that wrong or right? Medicare and Medicaid are available to low income individuals and families right? Are you going to ignore the fact that there are programs in place already? By the way, how efficient are those programs? Why would you want that for everybody in this country? If people had a choice, would they choose that program over private health insurance?
Paying for your own insurance is counting on yourself. Using your own means to transfer your risk to somebody else doesn’t represent counting on yourself? Paying for your healthcare with cash isn’t the only way to depend on yourself to provide healthcare. As for providing children with health care coverage, that is something I could get on board with. I am not against providing healthcare for the poor, and I don’t know how long you are going to ignore the fact that there are programs in place for that already. What are Medicare and Medicaid for? What I am against is expanding health coverage to every person in our society. As for not wanting to give back to my country, I already give 25% of my money to the federal government, and 3.36% to the state, and an additional 8.1% to the state and local government for everything I purchase besides food. How much is enough? When will it be enough for you? I’m sorry that I would like to keep at least half of my paycheck. I don’t think that is too much to ask for.
If you don’t like the current system in place, modify that system. You don’t have to take over the whole industry to make the changes necessary to provide adequate and affordable care. Other ways to lower the costs include providing care to citizens of OUR nation, education about alternatives to the ER, or if your intent on overhauling something, overhaul the way medical records are processed, and transition from a paper based system, to an electronic system. That will greatly reduce the cost of support staff, and the cost of supplies needed to keep the records. Single payer isn’t the answer, and I would be flabbergasted if it actually goes through.
theunchosen,
Apology accepted, Im not sensitve I just like to keep it socratic. Now you ask alot of qustions in you reply forgive me if I dont answer them specificly but I will attempt to cover the ground you have maped out.
Yes there are HUGE systemic problems with health care in general and depending on where you live your wait time for an apointment can be considerable. However restrictions on which doctors your accept your specific insurance can play a considerable role in that wait. Single Payer would be universally accepted thereby providing access to any availale doctor. Now Im not saying we are going to get single payer anytime soon, but we will get something and its the best opton not on the table. Because it would be hugely destructive to the insurance industry. The additional burdon on ERs is not only from people who want care that day, many people have chronic conditins that can not afford to pay for the MD visit so they present to the ER. I spent the better part of 12yrs watching that happen. Now we OBVIOSLY need more urgent care clinics and ERs often do refer out non emergent cases and often the clinics require some payment, so people who cant pay simply represent to the ER. Providing access to primary care will free up ER resourses but no it will not solve the systemic problems. But they are not being solved now. And now those who can afford insurance are still footing the bill for the uninsured, they use the system and the cost of their not paying gets transfered. Also costs are running out of control. I have also coded medical charts and it is a rackett the deal was to rationalize the condition as being more complex to get more money. Health care in this country has huge problems but paying exec’ s huge money is not helping.
See we have a fundamental difference in how we look at the government. I think our government is out of control but I also believe we have laws and a constitution that are worth defending and amending. The government is ours, they work for us and in the US worker solidarity is low but slowly increasing. The point of Single Payer or any public program is that collectively we as a society recognize our common needs and the whole purpose of government is for the popuation to use their collective power to meet those common needs. Self reliance is fine but our strength is in our society and culture and that is a collective thing.
As for how much you earn sure by global standards you are a rich man but the numbers bear the truth, working people are increasingly unable to protect themselves from finacial ruin secondary to illness or injury. But if we do as the ENTIRE industrialized world has done and use our collective power to protect ourselves we are going one better than insurance. See the governement doesn’t give us shit we pay for it, its not about depending on the government its about using the government for our purposes. Insurance companies know how to do that well, thats why they buy so many politcians via their lobbys.
Im sure you noticed we (taxpayers) have been bailing out the insurance industry. They are getting us in the wash and the dryer. And as I said their admin costs range from 15-25% where public programs like Medicare are more like 4%. The cost of health care is only increased by increased admin cost ie exec salries. And the incresed cost of multiple ER visists for chronic patients who cant pay. Not to mention injurys and the huge cost of paying for the uninsured. When those bills arent paid they get returned in higher costs for treatments and proceedures and increased insurance rates.
If we want a democracy we have to be willing to force our government to do our collective bidding, thats what democracy is about. If we dont use the government to our collective advantage corporations will. There is a battle going on over who owns the government, corporations or the people. Insurance is for profit Single Payer is not. As long as the payer needs to show a profit and pay huge exec salries the cost will be greater than if it is done on a non profit basis.
Thanx for your reply I hope I satisfactorily answered you. I mean I doubt I persuaded you but I tryed to speak to your basic points.
Respect
I would like to add this dimension to the debate. Has anyone considered the legal side of the healthcare debate? I was listening to the radio today, and the speaker brought up the issue of malpractice, and the costs associated with it i.e legal fees, the amount of money awared to claimants and the premiums that doctors pay to protect themselves from lawsuits. Basically the jist of the argument was that malpractice suits brought against doctors over the years has forced doctors to gaurd themselves against claims of malpractice suits. In order to protect themselevs they get insurance that have huge premuims. In some states it is as high as 100,000 a year. Here is an article that I read about it.http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Hartford-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Do-medical-malpractice-suits-contribute-to-rising-health-insurance-costs
In order to pay for the expensive insurance plan, the pass the cost of the premuim onto the patient in the form of high prices for service. This prices people out of services that would otherwise been affordable. I think that his dimension of the healthcare debate is being neglected in the national discourse in my opinion.
I think that the laws that deal with malpractice should be updated,scraped overhauled what ever you want to call it because it is obvious that the laws have been abused and has helped make the healthcare situation what it is today. I think that if we capped the amount of money that can be awarded in any given malpractice suit would help doctors anticpate what kind of insurance they need to protect themselves.I believe when this happens prices come down, and healthcare becomes affordable again.. We don’t need government funded healthcare. The only way government will pay for this government funded healthcare is to raise taxes. As my good friend the unchosenone said. When is it enough? We pay enough taxes as it is!!
As it stands now, you can sue for just about any amount of money you deem fit. As a doctor how can you plan for that? Right now the only way they do that is to get the most expensive insurance plan and cross their finger really. Thats no way to run a business in my opinion.
Is it right to award someone millions of dollars over a little mistake? Doctors are human, they make mistakes just like the rest of us. Doctors do need to be careful when performing their jobs because they are dealing with the life of another person but cut them some slack. I also believe that patients don’t have the right to bankrupt doctors just because they want to get rich quick. Thats not what our judical system is for. I think capping malpractice payouts across the nation, and having one uniform structure for the payouts will help lower costs and make our private system affordable again. I also think that chaning to electronic records would have a signifigant impact in bring down costs. What do you guys think of this idea?
AZ,
I have seen more malpractie than I care to describe. I think we have jury’s to decide what is appropriate. Trying to decide in advance what is approriat seems qute illogical, only the circumstances can reveal that. And not often enough do MDs get their licences yanked. Yes this adds to the cost but it is only one small piece of a large puzzle.
The article you sited reveals that Robert Wood Johnson in 2008 found “tort reform had little or no impact on health insurance premiums.” and again it seems to me there is a compleet disonect about what is happening. When execs at insurance compaies are making millions of dollars a year that cost goes on our premium and when the poor and idigent use the ER for a PCP we are paying too much for their care. Check that blog I sited and see what these fuckers are making.
People arent getting millions over little mistakes. Often they get nothing because no one knows what happened but the doctors and medical staff. I have seen so many shit doctors make stupid decisions and even stand idle while patiens die and they didn’t pay shit.
Finally there is another disconect, we are paying for the care now, the point is to get the cost down. Tort is not going to make a significant diference, even according to the article you sited. As for our taxes, hey we paid our taxes to bail out insurance companies because they are fucking up, but after they ran th companies into he ground the the execs looted the tax payer why would you still want to trust them with our care? When is enough enough in terms of taxes. Well when is enough enough for health insurance. My roommate looked for private coverage and they quoted him $1875 a month for him and his girlfriend. Hey if you want control of the government you must demand you get something for your taxes besides using them as subsidy for military contractors. What kind of nation do you want to build? A war machine where military contractors use their influence to rape us or one where we use our collective influence to demand public services?
To all; there ar some very sailent points in the Dave Lindorff article that I don’t think I have addressed suffcenty I hope you will all give it a read. http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06152009.html
dsent,
I think that tort reform would have a two-fold effect. One it would it would stop people from abusing the judical system. If doctors and health insurance companies know they can only be sued up to a specific amount, it would allow insurance companies to plan ahead and anticpate cost and charge a reasonable rate to doctors for insurance. Doctors in turn would not have to raise their rates on their patients to compensate for the expensive insurance they have to take out. This also means more doctors, more choice, lower cost and people can have a PCP to go to, and not over burden ER’s with non-emergencies.
The second effect of tort reform is it would take away the paranoia doctors have. Right now most doctors perform defensive medicine, and order test that they don’t necessarily need to do. They do this in order to cover their asses and not get sued. . Doctors don’t want to get sued over a test they didn’t think was necessary at the time. One mistake would put them out of business. Is that fair for doctors? I don’t think it is. Defensive medicine drives up cost for everyone. Tort reform might not be the cure all but I think it could go along way in solving this problem. Do you think that CEO salaries really impact the premeium rates that much? Do you have any evidence of this dsent? I am curious because I don’t see the correlation between exec’s pay and premiums. If this was the case shouldn’t we just ask exec to take a pay cut? I don’t think exec pay has much to do with the healtcare debate in my opinion.
I know that you’ve seen some shit in your day but I still believe that most doctors in this country are honest and caring people who want to do that right thing, help people and make a good living. I also get where you are coming from in terms of our collective power. I think we should use our collective power on many issues but on the issue of healtcare I don’t agree.
I think government should stay out of healthcare and let supply and demand take over. If our nation had less government interfernce in our economy I think alot of people could afford healthcare because wages would be high and the availablity of doctors would drive the prices down. I purely see this issue as a issue of economics. The standard of living in America has stagnated because wages don’t match the cost of living in this country. Government spending and tax policy have a huge influence on how the rest of the country operates. More money in the money supply means, purchasing power drops, value of the dollar drops, prices go up, interest rates goes up, wages go down and everything becomes less affordable such as healthcare. The government needs to stay out of healthcare and the economy plain and simple. this is how I see it.
AZ,
I accept that you are refsing the idea of Single payer. However your points have been addressed maybe you just don’t believe whats been reported. You posted the link where the study found tort had little or no effect on premiums. Furthermore to limit damage is to only serves to protect crimnal standards of care.
As to evidence that exec’s salries effect the cost of coverage, that has been addressed. It comes in the form of administrative costs, for Medicare that cost is about 4% (those administrators are not making illions) and for private insurers it between 15-25%, I dont understand who you think is paying that additional cost. Private insurance is not supply and demand health care it is a 3rd party profiting on you. And that 3rd party has a interest in denying care. And refusing coverage to those who are sick, then when preexisting conditions prevent coverage those folk go on the publics account. With the savings from single payer employers dont have to foot insurance costs for employees, that would be a HUGE benefit to small business and make industy more competitve. And it would mean we get more wages because the insurance benefits are part of our salry packages and if employers dont have to pay that we can make more money.
Finally one of the best MDs I have ever had the privlidge of working with fequently did tests that othe MDs would not do, often just part of his clinical exam but he didn’t do it to protect himself from law suits he did it to protect his patients and I know for a fact that he saved lives that way and insurance companies resist those tests. Brother this is a class issue the monied interests (inurance companies) want tort reform because it is insurace companies who are footing the bill for the malpractice and pushing for tort reform. They are trying to limit their liability. I dont understand why you trust inurance companies more than you trust jurys or your government but you have some control over government in a democracy and jurys are made up of you and I and common people. If you prefer to toe the insurance industry’s political line that is doubtlessly your perogitie, but I have no idea why you trust what they have to say. If you check that serene blog I posted you will see how some 11 exec’s made…. I think it was 87million bucks in on year. DUDE these are the fucks that needed our taxes to bail them out!!!! And you arent just a bit suspicious to find yourself on the same side of the debate as they are? Know your enemy. But I really dont think anything will change your mind , you have made your decision, but I just dont feel confident you are actually assessing the issue with your full intellectual capacity, since you are posing questions that have previously been addressed and presenting no informed contridiction to the answer thats already on the table.
Respect
Theunchosenone, You, like so many others, are only one illness away from losing everything you worked so hard for in life. For you not to be an advocate of maintaining insurance or universal healthcare is absurd. If you are not working, how is it you say you will be paying for someone elses healthcare? It’s high time everyone have equal access to healthcare, working or not. Someone has to pay for it and of course some sort of tax is a part of the answer. This issue is really no different than ony other at its core. Americans are paying for people who smoke, drink, gamble, drive automobiles, eat fatty foods, are on social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. We have taxes built into just about everything, why not healthcare?
dsent,
In the linke I posted it also said that in a 2004 report, tort reform did have some influence on premiums. The story was presenting both sides of the story. I think the evidence is inconclusive at best right now. The healthcare system is complex and has many competing interest vying for money and influence right? I think it should be involved in any healt reform bill. So in a government funded plan, who pays for malpractice suits? The government? How are they going to pay for it? Raise taxes right? That’s coming out of your pocket and mine. I think a government funded plan will increase the amount of malpractice law suits because if they can get a piece of the pie from the government. Is this a fair assesment? All I see is transferring this problem from the private sector to the public sector.
Ill concede the admin costs, has an effect on premiums, but I still think there is a better way of solving this problem than socializing it. How about asking the ceo to take lower pay but organizing a mass protest or a boycott of their services. We as comsumers can vote with our pocket books. I think the would get the message to change their ways and it wouldn’t cost a dime for the government. What do you think of this idea? I think we should use our collective power as consumers to inact change in the insurance industry. I am ideologically opposed to government sponsored healthcare. Call it paranoia if you want, but Im just not that trusting of our government. I am an able bodied american capable of making my own decision. This great country has given me the oppurtunity to have my own free will and I intended to use it to the last day I die. I refuse to have government have a say in such an important issue such as my healtcare. They have no right to do so. As you can see dsent I am very steadfast in my belief on this issue. I flat out don’t trust the government, this is part of american culture not to.
I also agree on your point that small business would benefit from not having to pay for insurance for their employees and wages would go up. There has to be a compromise some where, full socialization in my opinion would be a bad idea. i think it would stifle our economic growth as a nation. If we are going to maintain our status as the economic engine of the world our economy can not be weighed down by taxes. The only way government could pay for healthcare would be to tax people. I think government healthcare will diminsh our economic power in the world, and erode our power to influence countries economically. A good example of this would be Mcdonalds in China and other American companies overseas. These companies change cultures and policies/regimes, and all without dropping a single bomb or losing any lives. Economic expansion is at the core of our foriegn policy, and to blunt that ablity to expand into other markets because of higher taxes to pay for healthcare would be counter productive to our nation in this global economy. Thats the paradigm that I am viewing the healthcare issue through. It all comes back to economics. I would rather be competitve in the global economy and have companies that want to come here and help creat jobs than scaring away business because of high taxes. We have to look at the bigger picuture, rather than the tiny lense of one issue.
ndfence,
Be careful of theunchosen I caught im plagerizing on his blog about socialism and basically posting what I think is pretty clearly urban legend and he just deleted the comment.There is a lack of intellectual honesty eminating from that brother.
OK AZ,
“we sick and tired of the isim skism game” brah its ok with me if you are hard core against Single Payer, but I think what your saying is way off base.
1st- Malpractice is insurance is not what single payer is about that issue is totally disconected.
2nd- You want to ask exec’s to take a pay cut; sorry LOL good luck.
3rd-boycott protest? ? ? count on consumers to regulate a private corporations exec pay…. Wow I so dont see that happeing. especially since all of them are taking huge salrys if we boycott them all then we got no coverage, most consumers get insurance from their job so they are just taking what they can get.
4th- Refusal to have government have a “say” in health care,,,??? WTF as if corporations are so much more ethical. I mean really brah I know you have read my blog, you think I trust the government? !!! But I do want something for my money. It’s not about trusting the government its about controling it and demnding necessary services.
5th and maybe the most HUGE- NO IT WAS NOT THIS COUNTRY THAT GAVE YOU THE OPPERTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR OWN FREE WILL; IT WAS NATURAL SELECTON. The US is not the only country in the where people have liberties.
6th and finally; I encourage you to try to view issues without a lens and with then naked eye. The cost of other nations and this nations companies doing busies here is increased by private insurance. Our cost of private insurance is increased by it being a for profit industry. If you think you can trust insurance companies you got a suprise comming. And they are not democratic institutions. Your taxes are going up under any reform plan if only the few get coverage from the reform package it will be the most expensive “uninsurabe”.
But really if you wanna keep trusting insurance companies go right ahead, but remember they have a vested interest in denying care and refusing care to anyone they can. People who actually use their insurance cost the company money , they are in the business of making money and that means paying for as little as possible.
peace brother
You’re one serious illness away from losing everything you’ve worked for. What’s your point? You’re two paychecks away from being homeless…should we raise taxes and provide houses for everybody? Or how about this argument. Everybody needs electricity and some people can’t afford electricity. Why don’t we nationalize electricity too? Why is it absurd that I wouldn’t advocate socialized medicine? Socialized medicine is highly inefficient. Socialized medicine doesn’t mean the elimination of out of pocket health care costs. I just read something the other day about how Medicare households spent their money compared to non-Medicare households. The average healthcare expenditure for households with Medicare coverage was over 3x what a household pays when they have other coverage. 14.1% of total expenditures was healthcare related for Medicare households compared to 4.3% for non-Medicare households. How is it beneficial to have this socialized medicine when 14% of your expenditures are still healthcare related? What I think is absurd is that you believe that socialized medicine will be the cure all for the rising costs and that you are oblivious to the fact that the government will ration healthcare. They do it now under medicare and medicaid. Now you advocate that those systems should be the standard for all Americans?
The argument that healthcare has to be paid by somebody is old. Healthcare should be paid for by the person receiving the care. If you don’t work, guess what? You probably qualify for Medicaid. Guess what else? It’s free and we already pay taxes for that. It’s estimated that about what, 50 million Americans are without health insurance currently? The plans proposed thus far estimate that it will cost anywhere from $1,000,000,000,000 to $1,600,000,000,000 over the next 10 years. That is just to provide coverage to the 50 million currently uninsured. What about the other 250 million Americans? Do they just continue to pay for their own healthcare and then pay the bill for the others that don’t have it?
“Americans are paying for people who smoke, drink, gamble, drive automobiles, eat fatty foods, are on social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. We have taxes built into just about everything, why not healthcare?”
You made my point for me.
We pay taxes for everything. Why would you want to add national healthcare to the list? Besides that, we already pay taxes for socialized healthcare. Why don’t people seem to understand that we already pay for Medicare and Medicaid? We don’t like Medicare or Medicaid, but the masses are flocking to the idea because they like the idea of free.
Another problem I have with socialized medicine is that Medicare and Medicaid underpay doctors and hospitals for the services provided. There are many doctors that won’t accept or do not want to accept patients covered by these plans because they know they won’t get paid what they believe their services are worth. Why does the government get this special privalege to tell a doctor what they feel is an appropriate amount to pay for a service?
theuncosen,
uh in a nutshell.,.. horse shit.,. You are spewing insurance company sponsored lies. Sure you dont want to pay a dime to pay for anyone elses care but you already are paying (just paying more than you would with Single Payer).
But you also dont pay a dime for the copy you plagerize on your blog site, so its ok for you to steal copy from others, spread lies or urban legend and pretend it is fact and that you wrote the copy, but those of us who want health care to be about our nations health and not let insurance copanys proft from us are socialists, BS brah . Take down your stolen copy fairy tale about a whole class in texas advocating socialism.
Saying an argument is old does not invalidate the argument, but posting made up storys that you CAN NOT source, deleting reply’s that expose your plagerizing and expose the story as a lie do invalidate you. Shame on you, your actions degrade us all, show some integrity and cop to what you have done or at the very least don’t do it anymore. http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html
dsent,
First of all I think malpractice should be a part of the disucssion because in a single payer system that you advocate, the gov would have to pick up the tab on any lawsuit pertaiing to malpractice. correct me if I am wrong.
2nd, why not consider my idea of consumers actually standing up to the insurance companies? This defeatist attitude doesn’t suit you my friend. If the founding fathers had this type of attitude American would have never existed. If people were more informed, they would do something about it. I don’t think its a crazy idea to stage a boycott for one for one and it would be a hell of alot cheaper than having the government implementing so called universal healthcare. People boycotting and marching in the streets would become a headache for everyone, businesses and politicans alike. Have more faith in our ablity to change things without running to government. Money talks my friend, and when insurance begin to see that their bottoms lines are starting to be effected I think they would change. Alof of pissed off people can change things. Businesses want to make money ultimately and will bend over backwards to get it in some instances. I think education and mobilization of the consumer to fight for their rights for accoutablity and transparency is the key to solving problem, not gov. obviously you think otherwise and i respect that.
Also From media reports that ive heard over the last couple days is that it wouldn’t even cover everyone. Im not sure on the exact figure but I think it would only cover 16million of the 50 million people that have no heatlh insurance. Who can you advocate spending 1 trillion plus dollars to insure 16 million people? This math doesn’t add up. What about the rest of us? Are we stuck paying for private insurance and paying for someone elses healthcare in the form of higher taxes? How is this fair? Im not willing to put our economy in jeporday over 16 million people, call me callous but its not very cost effective. There are other ways to solve this problem that having the heavy hand of government.
3rd- Its not that I am more trusting of corporations over government. I am more wary of government because they have coercive power and is more diffucult to roll back when the get to intrusive. One government gets power they don’t let go. Corporations can lose their power and influence quite easily via boycotts, competition etc… In essence I am more comfortable with the private sector insurance than a government sponsored plan. I get that you see healthcare as a service that should be provided by government. I on the other hand believe that government should stick to the what was put in the constitution. Last time I checked the power to provide healthcare to citizens was not a power given to the federal government. What kind of america do you want to live in? One that rewards innovation and hard work? Or one where no one can be better than the other?
4th- I meant free expression of opinion not free will. I am very aware that other countries have liberties. All I am saying is that government would be impeding on my civil liberties by endangering our economy for the sake of a few. Obama’s plan will hurt our economic and our national security. Obama should follow they oath of the father of western medicine Hippocrates “above all do harm”.
peace bro
dullahan,
Sorry it was late I needed a nap allow me to finish up.
You said “Starting this year, the annual Social Security surpluses that Congress has been borrowing and spending on other programs will begin to shrink…..This year, the surplus will be only about $18 billion” OK only an $18 BILLION surplus thats all, so you admit its been doing pretty well in fact running surpluses and we are more than 75yrs into the program, so I dont know why you keep running back to fiscal scare tactics as an argument against Single Payer, yes its a large program, yes, as with any there will be adjustments and no libertarians wont want to cowboy up and pay any taxes, they want all the benefits of living in an empire but dont what any of the responsibility of paying for the cultural benefits or needs.
There is an immature view of taxes in this country, there is broad acceptance that we should be purchasing UNUSEABLE nuclear weapons and allowing millitary contractors to use the system and the revolving door to government along with their lobbiests to loot our treasury and defraud us of TRILLIONS of dollars over the years and yet if you tell people they might have to pay a few bucks more in taxes for a health care plan that will keep them from going bankrupt if they get ill and many will flip out. American voters are so desperate to hear that they wont have any tax increases they will vote for somene like G. Bush Sr. because he repeated the mantra”No New Taxes” throughout his campaign, every economist in the nation at the time was saying taxes MUST be raised but America elected the former DCI who immediately proceeded raise taxes.
Now while I think the constitution is worth defending AND ammending, to harken the views of its framers as regards social security or really most issue that face our country today is a red herring. I mean come on these guys held slaves and had the audacity to talk about all men being created equal. Yes theres some good things about the constitution not the least of which is it is a living document and can be ammended. The founders could have never imagined all the contingencys that face our nation today let a lone script into the constitution the way people should resolve problems some 200yrs in the futer.
You said “It’s not so much that I love insurance companies that I argue against single payer public healthcare, it’s because I hate tyranny. And that’s just what we’ve been lurching toward since the New Deal.” Are ya kidding? I mean we have been there and are doing that, but to use that argument about Single Payer?? WTF?? OVER??? Did ya read about the patriot act, authorization of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, wars of aggression, illegal domestic survelience, the millions of refugees those wars of aggression have displaced. Ya wanna talk tyrany? I would love to, lets do it, But to call Single Payer tyrany!!!!! Oh groan and sigh I can not for a minute look at the aggressive violent behavior of Washington and as anything but tyranical and they are staunchly refusing Single Payer.
The sweetheart relationship US government has with business (insurance copanies) and their adimant refusal to consider what the majority taxpayers are asking for is tyranical. This govenment is on a dead run to fascism. But it is that corporate ability to control government that defines this fascist tyrany. Baucus and the prez refuse to put Single Payer on the table. Hey why don’t you pont your magic scope at why Baucus is the guy in the driverseat on health care reform…
Here let democracy now help you focus that bad boy “Montana Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is the Senate’s point man on healthcare reform. A new article in the Montana Standard finds that Senator Baucus has received more campaign money from health and insurance industry interests than any other member of Congress. The article says, “In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.” http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/16/report_senator_max_baucus_received_more
So yes our government is a fascist tyrany but our ability to force their hand on Single Payer would be resitance to that tyrany. Single Payer is not tyranical brah, you got the cart in front of the horse on that one. Didn’t you notice that they are resisting even discussing Single Payer, and I know you are aware there is a public mandate for Single Payer, yes there some who are still buying into insurace company propagana and government scare tactics like budget threats or threats of taxes, hey these guys (insurance companies and politicians) are fighting tooth and nail to stop Single Payer.
You seem like a smart dude to me, I dont really understand why you would allign youself with these buggars. Just finding myself on their side would freak me out, I would think somthing must be missing in my magic scopes field of view and or something had been cleverly inserted to keep me doing their bidding. I strongly encourage you to resist tyrany brother, and I can see you have the inclination, I just dont think you are pointing your magic scope in the right direction. Point it at Max Baucucs he’s a fantastic example of how government is using fascist tactics to control public reform measures or more like he is there to pevent them.
Much Respet
Dsent
serene,
Thanx for weighing in on the issue and for the EXCELLENT links you provided.
Peace
Ok the 1st 1/2 of the reply was pretty redundant and I am really not feeling the VC debate, I am not saying medicare is perfect and I know neither is insurance based payment. Fact; Both deny care. Fact; Insurance companies make more money by denying care. There is no reason you cant buy suplemental insurance if there was Single Payer. So the liberal economic rhetoric is just that rhetoric. And yes for years medicare has stayed fiscally health, ooohhh scare me by saying soon it wont be fiscally viable… But I’ve been hearing shit like that for years. So its hard for me to get worked up. Fact; Insurance companies have no democratic control, So you trust the insurance companies I would prefer to trust the democratic process. I see you are a dyed in the wool freemarket advocate and anything different is tyrany to you. OK you want to trust business to regulate themselves, sure has worked well up to now. Its not like we the taxpayers have had to bailout any of these unregulated “freemarket” business’s have we now? As for Weems I really dont find him impressive and he is a mouth piece for the insurance industry. I was simply saying that to talk about fraud in the absence of any comparitive data is just scare tactics.
Ok now some answers in text;
Why should Weems discuss the shortcomings of private health insurance?
He should not he is their spokes person.
What about the things he did discuss?
I did not find his position in the least compelling.
Do private insurers build provider networks that include high-value providers and exclude low-quality providers? Or not?
Some times and they also refuse to cover people who are costly and drop them like a hot potato when the get the chance.
Is Medicare is forbidden from excluding poor quality providers? Or not?
Did I say medicare might not need some reforms? Oh no I didn’t so this is just another red herring question.
Will Americare have Medicare’s indifference to quality — or invest in the cost of a network?
check your magic glass you keep asking me to make magical predictions about a plan that the president or Bauccus is refusing to consider. Another question just for the sake of asking I guess.
Do private insurers negotiate rates? Or not?
They do try. So…
Does Medicare just fix prices using a statutory and regulatory scheme? Or not?
Are you seriously asking? Sounds like you know? Why not make a declaritive statement rather than just spitting questions you know the answer too?
When Medicare’s statutory prices do not cover full provider costs are shortfalls shifted to private payers who end up subsidizing the public program? Or not?
See last response.
Is it or is it not true that private insurers must combat fraud — or go out of business?
No.
Is it or is it not true that Medicare spends less than one-fifth of 1% on antifraud measures — a small fraction of what private plans invest in their efforts to build a network of honest providers?
See respose 3questions ago.
Is or is it not true that Medicare’s “payments made in error” amount to over $10 billion annually? Or are they way higher?
see response 4 questions ago.
Is it or is it not true that in four of the past five years Congress has turned back Medicare’s pleas for $579 million of additional antifraud funding despite the report that the return on investment for certain Medicare antifraud measures were estimated to be in excess of 13-1?
If ya got something to say then say it dont ask me to answer a question you know the answer too. Its like your attempting to script my response rather than just make your points.
Will Americare also hemorrhage from fraud because of chronic Congressional underinvestment?
No. Feel better?
As for Baucus he is the poster boy for insurance companies brah you are on the same side of the debate as he is?
You said “As for there being a public mandate for Single Payer – if that is true why are we getting reports that say 89% of Americans are satisfied with their own personal medical care?”
There personal medical care? Really? Regulation mag. Ok believe it if you like.
You said “The point is that you are arguing to destroy one system and replace it with another. The burden of proof is on you. You need to show that show that single payer will outperform our current system.”
Simple Single Payer means everyone has insurance and presently they dont so it outperforms the present system.
You said “Having government financed health-care will take away the individual’s ability to make cost-benefit and cost-quality decisions about his own condition as the State will do this for him. The individual will be tethered tightly to the State, utterly reliant on it for health and survival.”
Hogwash, nothing will stop you from procuring an insurance suplement and shopping around.
You said “Businesses, by contrast, cannot use force, no matter how big and powerful they are.”
ROFLMFAO they can control governments who can do it for them, I could give you a long list but again we are straying from the point. Save to say tell it to Ken Sarawewas son.
So where is the mandate? you ask
http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
Finally as to the constitution and framers ect… The Patriot Act pretty much put the constitution in the trash. I can see that you are totally against democratic controls of necessary services, you want to trust the market. Im saying that has been failing us left and right. People out of work taxpayers bailing out INSURANCE COMPANIES, auto industry, banks ect … Market regulation of itsself has a less than stellar record.
Oh lastly as for arguments about Obamas plan> I have never said a word in support it so I refuse to defend it, or him, he and Baucuss are insurance company puppets.
I understand you, you want just what the insruance companies want. Well they have been getting their way for years and we have a crisis? So its beyond me why you want to keep trusting them. As for all the scare tactics about “socialized medicine”… Hey thats not what Single Payer is about. I would strongly encourage you to read the links Serene provided. It really highlights the scarry situation of having gaurenteed health care. Its not about the government being a nanny thats BS. Its about using our democratic process to provide for the general welfare.
But hey stick to your guns brah. You got big friends. Baccus, Obama, and the insurance industry.
You said “The private sector needs to solve the health care problem with a tiny bit of help from the government as a regulator.”
Just what Baucus Obama and the insurance industry want. The government will foot the bill for the folks the industry doesn’t profit on so the poor and the uninsuable go on the public dole and profitable consumers still pay for them in taxes and must find private insurance for themselves.
You said “We need to help the uninsured find coverage in the private sector and use market incentives to contain costs. Tax credits, high-risk pools, insurance choice and regulatory reform can form the basis of a transformation from today’s enormously costly and inefficient third-party system into one driven by ownership, choice and competition.”
Ownership? Choice and compitition are what we have now, its not efficent and has driven costs upward. Sound like your arguing for more of the same but the government should help insurance companies out. Why arent you complaining about the bailouts of the insurance industry? Rather than complain about the fact they need our taxes to bail them out you want to give them tax credits? Do you work for an insurance company?
vindication!!!! read this article please. The unhealthy lifestyles that many americans are leading is what is making the cost of healthcare go up not the insurance industry or greedy doctors as claimed by President Obama. http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Soda and beer are two of the things eroding the foundation of America. Look at the bodies of the people who live here - are you saying that cigs can be taxed and not soda? As I was taking my online healthcare degree (http://www.degreesinhealthcare.org), I saw all the harm that excess soda can do to a person.