- ‹ previous
- 635 of 2716
- next ›
Conservatives and Healthcare
Over at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, liberal Dan Miller jumps into a conversation about healthcare:
There’s a vast policy apparatus on the progressive side of the aisle built around health care, with industrious wonks digging into every nook and cranny.
Meanwhile, the right has...nothing....The right has basically abdicated its role in the conversation. It has not and as far as I can tell will not treat health care reform as any kind of priority—every major player on the right is sitting on the sidelines. If we’re lucky, we’ll get two GOP Senate votes. And this after not one but two elections in which the right was beaten by historic margins.
Why is this? Sometimes it's worth backing up a bit and looking at the fundamentals. And we have two fundamentally incompatible desires here: the American public supports universal healthcare. Conservatives support a free market approach to healthcare. Unfortunately, the free market doesn't do universal. That's why, for things like roads, national defense, the postal service, and old-age pensions — all of which we've decided ought to be available to everyone — we let the government do the job.
So if you want universal coverage, the government has to be involved. Still, this doesn't necessarily mean the government literally has to provide healthcare to everyone. If you want a more limited government solution you could instead fund healthcare only to the 47 million uninsured. Since everyone else is already covered, that would effectively make healthcare universal. Unfortunately, there's a problem with this too.
Let's take an analogous case: food stamps. The government doesn't try to provide food to everyone, only to those poor enough that they can't get it on their own. But what's to stop everyone from lazily quitting their jobs and living off food stamps? Answer: you'd have to accept being poor. There are some people willing to do that, but most of us aren't. So it's a manageable problem.
But healthcare is different because most of us don't buy it directly out of our own pockets. We get healthcare insurance from our employers. So suppose the government stepped in to help out just the uninsured. What would happen?
Well, for starters, the program could be limited just to the poor. But that wouldn't make it universal since there are plenty of non-poor who don't have health insurance and can't get it through the private market.
No, we'd have to simply offer it to anyone who was uninsured, subsidizing the poor and charging full price to everyone else. But what would happen then? Answer: employers would start dropping health coverage for their employees. Why wouldn't they, after all? Unlike the food example, where there are personal incentives against being lazy and living off the government dole, employers have no reason to hold back. As long as a decent alternative is available, their incentive is to get out of the healthcare business, hand over the money they save to their employees, and tell them to sign up for the government program. Before long, the government would be funding a huge portion of the private insurance market.
That will never fly, of course, so we'd need rules in place to prevent companies from dropping their healthcare plans. But that would put existing companies at a disadvantage if new companies didn't also have to provide healthcare. So we'd need rules that didn't just prohibit companies from dropping healthcare, but affirmatively required them to provide healthcare. But which companies? Lots of big companies don't offer healthcare right now, so this would be a brand new mandate.
And what about insurance companies? Well, if we're relying on them to insure the people who aren't covered by their employers, they need to take all comers. Coverage is supposed to be universal, after all. This means that even people with expensive pre-existing conditions need to be included, and they need to be included at a reasonable price. That's yet more regulation.
I could keep going, but you get the idea: by the time you're done you have a web of regulation so tight that you basically have the same same plan liberals offered up in the first place. The only way to make healthcare universal is either to have the government fund it or to turn private insurers into little more than regulated utilities. Either way, it's not a free market solution.
This, then, is the fundamental conservative problem: you can either have universal coverage or you can have a quasi-free market. There's no way to have both, but no one is willing to say publicly that it's OK to leave millions of people without healthcare. So instead conservatives hem and haw and nibble around the edges with things like HSAs and tax exclusions, even though these ideas don't do anything to make healthcare coverage more widely and securely available. No free market solution can do that.
But that's what the public wants. And so conservatives are stuck.
Ron Paul is at least honest
Ron Paul is at least honest about it. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/281590/Healthcare-Is-%22Not-a-Right%22-and-Obama%27s-Plan-Will-Cost-Way-Beyond-1T-Ron-Paul-Says?tickers=^dji,^GSPC,pph,jnj,mrk,pfe,unh&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
There are more options if
There are more options if you're willing to completely tear apart and replace our current health care system, like the Wilkinson plan and the DeLong plan.
comment
The health care plan is an issue until now was debated in the government. Health is wealth so in this time of crisis, we should always mind our health. Anyway, Lance Armstrong, a seven times Tour de France winner who came back almost from his deathbed was one of the most well known personalities in the world of sports. Lance Armstrong is currently vying for his 8th yellow jersey. It takes more than just a pay day loan to get in the race. Already the stuff of legend, his comeback after a 3 ½ year layoff is being documented in a documentary film being shot by Alex Gibney, a noted documentarian, who also directed the biographical film about Hunter Thompson. Lance Armstrong has named Alberto Contador his favorite, but it would be worth a cash loan to see how close Lance gets. To read more, please visit http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/07/16/armstrongs-historic-r...
?
And your point is ?
it's an SEO spammer
Search Engine Optimization
you haven't seen this guy around before? basically, they find a way to make the topic of the page and the words "pay day loan" fit in the same paragraph. that way google makes their page link move up in the entries because it looks like a more poopular page (aka people unrelated are linking to it from other pages).
some of these are pretty funny. this one comes off as half-assed.
health care
First of all, don't forget about those of us who are self-employed, who pay 100% of our health care. Second, as you know, there are vast numbers of working families whose health insurance comes from their employers, who are either losing their health care, or are seeing the coverage limits reduced because their employers are switching providers. Then, of course, there's the matter of pre-existing conditions, along with the cherry-picking taking place vis a vis coverage pools and age/state of health.
So the real point, I believe, is that the entire health insurance system in the US is broken, and it's this fact that none of the politicians want to face. It reminds me of the difference between the posted unemployment rate and the real rate, a difference that allows us to pretend that our economic system isn't broken as well.
One of the most frustrating
One of the most frustrating things about this debate is the conflation of health care with health insurance. Many of the people who do not have insurance still get health care. They go to San Francisco General, or Cook County, or Bellevue, wait for long hours, but they get health care! Many people have health insurance but find out when they need it that it won't cover the health care they require. They have a pre-existing condition, or they're maxed out, or their insurance carrier just decides to decline their claim, so they don't get health care! Health care providers are not insurance companies. The health insurance system is not broken, they are making record profits -- and making profits is what they're supposed to be doing. The health care system is hugely expensive and very uneven in the quality of care they provide, but one of the main problems that the health care system has is dealing with the health insurance system!
There is a gap between what
There is a gap between what Conservatives want and what Republicans want. Conservatives want a free market, which is not what we have because most workers are told which plan to join or only given a choice between two plans. For Conservatives, the current situation is frustrating.
Republicans want a lot of money going to insurance companies, which is the status quo. They also want to be able to complain about the budget, which is easy to do with our current system and any attempt to put a band-aid on it, and to be able to complain about Democrats, which is easy to do when Democrats have an imperfect plan. For Republicans, everything is fine in this area. (Things are not fine overall because their leaders are horrible people and the American public has figured it out, but things are fine for them on this issue.)
Drum writes: "the American
Drum writes: "the American public supports universal healthcare."
Where do you get that? One or two polls that may have slanted its questions, just a bit, to get the answer their clients wanted?
You've already rigged the deck for this little thought experiment. Going any further is a waste of time.
MacGruber, it doesn't make
MacGruber, it doesn't make any difference. Kevin uses this leg of straw for support but when most Americans do not support gay marriage, well then, you know it doesn't really matter what most people think. That's what's so interesting about Kevin, he doesn't really care what most people think or else he wouldn't contradict himself so often.
I'm pretty sure a national
I'm pretty sure a national poll was taken on this subject recently and the result, to the best of my understanding, was decisive.
It's not the most scientific way to determine policy, but it has worked pretty well for the past 200 years or so.
sign up to support a public option
if you haven't already seen this:
http://standwithdrdean.org/
What if we wanted to get into public plan
I work for a small business in Colorado (<10 employees). My new monthly premium with Anthem for myself and my 2 children (my wife has her own healthcare) has risen this year from $650 to $1000 because i've just hit 50, and this is for a plan thats only 1 step up from the cheapest plan they offer. I would just love to get out of this and into a public plan. So what happens to those of us who are stuck in massively expensive plans and cant get out?
Why can't you 'get out' of
Why can't you 'get out' of your expensive, employer-provided insurance? Is it a requirement for employment? I am self-employed (a software consultant since '79), married, 3 children still living at home. We pay $80 /month for the family (it was still $80 when there were 6 of us) for pretty much unlimitied access to an outpatient clinic and another $286 /month for the family for major medical (inpatient) health insurance. We have had two inpatients claims in the past 5 years and had no problem with either one. They were completely paid. I think you have not done your homework. You have taken the path of least resistence and let your employer decide what you should do. Now, you are all for switching to the government. What, exactly, is your health worth to you?
I agree with MacGruber.
I agree with MacGruber. This whole post is based on a faulty premise. Sure, some polls say Americans want universal coverage. Other polls say that they aren't willing to pay much in increased taxes to pay for it. Others say that a large majority are happy with their insurance coverage. So do Americans really want it? I'd say not really.
You are being as fuzzy and
You are being as fuzzy and evasive as the republicans. The increase in tax to pay for health care doesn't come from people who need health care reform which are mostly people making between $20,000 to about $50,000 a year. These people are either working part time and do not qualify for employer provided health care or are inadequately covered, or are paying too much for it and are going bankrupt etc. The tax increase to pay for heath care reform comes from the people who are making over $250,000. These group of people usually have excellent health coverage provided by their employers and many of them are willing to pay the extra tax to make sure everyone in this most powerful country in the world has access to an affordable and quality health care.
Finance Committee Needs to Hear these Opinions *now*
You want a public option bill done before the recess? Phone the senators on the Finance Committee, where this is being decided in the next THREE TO FOUR DAYS.
Blanche Lincoln AR (202) 224-4843
http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Max Baucus MT (202) 224-2651
http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Kent Conrad ND (202) 224-2043
https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Jeff Bingaman NM (202) 224-5521
http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm
Chris Dodd CT (202) 224-2823
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128
Ron Wyden OR (202) 224-5244
http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Jay Rockefeller WV (202) 224-6472
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
John Kerry MA (202) 224-2742
http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Charles Schumer NY (202) 224-6542
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
Debbie Stabenow MI (202) 224-4822
http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Maria Cantwell WA (202) 224-3441
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Robert Menendez NJ (202) 224-4744
http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Thomas Carper DE (202) 224-2441
http://carper.senate.gov/contact/
Bill Nelson FL (202) 224-5274
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
NOTE: Not to be confused with fascist "Dem" Ben Nelson NB
Olympia Snowe ME (202) 224-5344
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe....
Leadership:
Harry Reid (202) 224-3542 PRESS 1
Dick Durbin (202) 224-2152
'hand over the money they save to their employees'
The only part of that post I disagreed with was the line
'hand over the money they save to their employees'? Yes!, But, no, I can't picture it.
But, if conservatives are offended by regulations and mandates, why not offer to remove the mandate for employers to continue providing coverage at all?
Surely that would gladden their miserly hearts.
Why do say conservatives are
Why do say conservatives are miserly? Surely you know about the studies proving that conservatives are far more generous than liberals in charitable giving. Just because conservatives prefer lmiited government and personal responsibility does not mean they are miserly. They have a different worldview than liberals. Why not debate the merits of each without demonization?
Which studies are those? Are
Which studies are those? Are they the ones based on tax deductible gifts? Any study dealing with charitable giving seems to be inherently flawed for several reasons:
1. People are likely to exaggerate about their generosity.
2. Gifts with a paper trail aren't really gifts (they're just ways to avoid paying taxes).
3. Charitable gifts are often measured in dollar amounts instead of percentage of income. The wealthy may give more in dollars but won't feel it as much as a family living just above the poverty line who gives until it hurts.
Wanting limited government and emphasis on personal responsibility are just symptoms of a bigger disease (i.e., the unwillingness to admit that the economic system we have is inherently unfair and unjust). The only way those who benefit can keep it that way is by pushing for less government and convincing poor people that they just aren't trying hard enough.
It's too bad FreidaF is a
It's too bad FreidaF is a poorly constructed spambot. She sure is a babe.
why isn't corporate America screaming for a gov't plan?
I've never understood that. Can anyone explain? Why not shift their employees to a public plan? It's got to cost less than the thousands per employee that is currently spent. Not to mention the time spent negotiating insurance plans.
And, why isn't health care on a par with fire fighting and crime prevention? Nobody checks to see if you have insurance if your house is burning down - society has taken on the job (and expense) of fighting fires, crime, etc. Why is the job of health care different?
If President Obama succeeds,
If President Obama succeeds, it will come to this, except regulated from Washington, DC, not your local community. Firefighters come when the house is on fire and put out the fire. Period. They do it the quickest, most effective way. No consultation. And then leave when it's out. The police may or may not come when called. May come too late. Why do we now have a huge new industry in private security? Because the police could not meet the needs of everyone. Are you SURE you want the same type of medical care exemplified by the police and firefighters? They do their jobs very well within the very limited scope of the job.
While the majority of people
While the majority of people may support universal health care (UHC), a majority also do not want to be the ones paying for it. Confiscating wealth from someone else may sound good to those who are not selected to forcibly contribute to UHC, but even the estimates for the House Bill show that to be well over $300 billion short. This is even without the targeted group adjusting their positions so as to contribute less to UHC. So where does the balance get made up? Either tax employees on the health benefits, which they won't because the unions own Obama, or install a VAT to raise more money. The author does not talk about the cost. A lot of things sound good, until you talk about the cost. The bill was written that if anything changes on your policy, you get shoved into the public plan, except unions are exempt from this. Conservatives do have alternatives, they just aren't what the left wants to hear. Look at Safeway's plan, this seems viable. The CBO said that this bill will increase health care costs. The Dems have tried to sell this as something we can do that will save money. Not. To have UHC, which is to help the minority, you have to ration health care. So a lot of people will pay twice - once for the mandatory public option and then again for private insurance so as to get access to health care before they die.
Going back to the
Going back to the fundamentals, trying to see the forest for the trees, is a great effort, Kevin, but you are still missing the significance of a critical distinction between protection against devastating losses and responsibility for ordinary costs. If we agree to use our government to protect each other against worst-case scenarios, and to help others who are less fortunate with taking care of costs that may be ordinary or manageable for many of us, but very painful for others – i.e., a government umbrella on top of private (or public) insurance underneath the government protection available to anyone who wants it on non-discriminatory terms, and with subsidies for those who need them to buy such insurance – the clouds part and everything falls into place. It fits conceptually with a traditional conservative view of government, while certainty of coverage for individuals and providers against worst-case scenarios will drive many costs down, including the costs of the services themselves as well as the total aggregate insurance revenue (aggregate premiums, private and public) to allow people to receive those services.
Who says the people want universal healthcare
The readers of Mother Jones do. There are tens of millions of people who don't want to wreck the current system (include those on Medicare, if they were properly informed) so that few millions who don't have health insurance get some coverage. Let's not forget - few people are actually denied care, they just get it wihout paying for it.
NOT TRUE
Except for Emergency Room treatment you are out of luck.
When did extended chronic care or dental care or mental health care get taken care of in an ER?
No, ER care is the most expensive and doesn't handle everything. We need a sane health care/insurance system.
Universal care AND free-market competition
tagged as:- solution
The solution is easy, and we already have it!!
Look at Medicare. The old poor have Medicare. Coverage: okay, but not great. The old not-so-poor have Medicare, too but they SUPPLEMENT it with Medigap coverage. The government prescribes the *form* of Medigap coverage, but not the price or the provider.
Why don't we do the EXACT same thing with health care for everyone else? Everyone gets "base" universal care. Employers offer "gap" coverage in different tiers (according to some government-prescribed levels), provided by PRIVATE health insurance companies at FREE-MARKET rates.
Middle-class working folks still get superior coverage as part of their employment package, while the working poor get coverage where they had none before.
Yes, it costs money, but all the proposals do, and at leat this one neither (a) subverts the free market, nor (b) lowers the level of care provided to the working middle-class who are the engine of American prosperity.
Under the current system,
Under the current system, while perhaps 20% of the country has no health insurance at all, almost all of the other 80% has insurance that (a) is extraordinarily expensive, (b) may not be remotely adequate to cover an actual large claim, and (b) can be lost if the job is lost. It's a terrible system that undermines confidence in the future that is necessary for a strong economy. Everyone wants that to change. The only way that can possibly change is that, one way or the other, coverage for at least the worst-case scenario from a health problem must be universal and guaranteed under all circumstances, period.
If anyone has any ideas other than using our government to solve those problems, I am all ears. If any of them don't understand that the cost per capita to fund a government portion of health insurance will be considerably less than than premiums they pay now for that same portion -- i.e., that because the government will handle the entire risk pool and does not need to charge profit on that coverage, their taxes will increase less than their premiums are decreased, which means they come out ahead -- that is a failure of thought-processes that ought to be addressed.
"If anyone has any ideas
"If anyone has any ideas other than using our government to solve those problems, I am all ears. If any of them don't understand that the cost per capita to fund a government portion of health insurance will be considerably less than than premiums they pay now for that same portion -- i.e., that because the government will handle the entire risk pool and does not need to charge profit on that coverage, their taxes will increase less than their premiums are decreased, which means they come out ahead -- that is a failure of thought-processes that ought to be addressed."
1. In most economic circumstances, a monopoly raises prices. Yet, liberals believe a government monopoly of health care will lower them. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.
2. The government, in order to trim costs, will question health care decisions made by the people and their doctors. No health care system in the world - public or private - simply writes a blank check based on what the doctor and his/her patient decide. The U.S. government will be no different. Rationing won't be far behind, either. A government bureaucrat will have an easy time justifying a 30-year old patient receiving a new kidney over an 80-year old patient. How? Actuary tables.
3. Your costs will go up because you are subsidizing all the other people in the country who need more medical services than you. And, if you choose to have supplemental insurance, you'll need to pay for that too.
Wrong, Macgruber, your net
Wrong, Macgruber, your net costs will go down. Yes, you will be subsidizing others who had no insurance, but you already are through their in getting less expensive early care and inappropriate emergency room usage. Providers fees will decrease because certainty of payment will eliminate much of the need for the huge collection infrastructure, including a delinquency/late-pay cushion built into fees. On the insurance side, premiums for private supplementary insurance will decrease not only (immensely) due to a ceiling on exposure, but also because the preexisting conditions infrastructure (and most of the coordination of benefits requirements) will be unnecessary.
The government will not be monopolizing healthcare with an incentive to raise its cost, merely part of the insurance. This does not even get to the actual experience of other advanced countries with control of all healthcare, where overall costs are less than they are here -- and where assertions of poor care cannot be supported with plausible evidence.
Rationing? No more than insurance companies do now,with the default for revene-enhancement purposes being non-coverage. Sure, there will be review and controls, just as there should be, but the doctors and hospitals are powerful groups who can more than hold their own against mere government bureaucrats.
The american public does not support universal healthcare.
tagged as:- result
The article above is wrong. Right now, according to Rasmussen Reports, It is running 50 - 35 against a public option.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_...
Insurance Companies
Kevin asks: And what about insurance companies? and the answer is: France. See, universal care doesn't just mean that the government takes over lock stock and two smoking barrels. The UK is one way, France is another. The insurance companies are still in business and (horrors!) still make money. It's that the public option is subsidy.
Oddly, despite the culture of death, you know, the left, the French seem to actually live longer than us. If it's the sex, then it's the perfect topic for Rachel Maddow's show, Of course, she's leagues better than Olbermann.
Neither one will discuss health care. Nor will either have Naomi Klein back on the discuss the "biggest financial heist ever."
From the Howler: KLEIN (5/6/09): I mean, the scale is absolutely unprecedented. And I do believe—you know, I hate to say this, people are feeling a little bit optimistic—that I really do think this will go down, the bailout will go down, as the greatest heist in monetary history.
I have nothing against
I have nothing against insurance companies per se, nor against profit. They issue a lot of paychecks, and for that matter, a lot of payments for claims. They are playing by the rules that have been set, which includes lobbying to protect their profits. That's what companies do. But that system of rules has left a huge mess, and their lobbying in their own interest is now working against the public interest.. It is up to the rest of us, through our elected representatives, to change the rules. As I would see it, private insurance would still have role to play underneath the Federal umbrella. They would still have the opportunity to earn profits on that business, yes, even in competition with a good public option, but because of the cap on exposure the premiums for that layer of insurance would inevitably drop dramatically.
Also keep in mind what a universal system does: it guarantees payment to the provider, and that is key to the whole system. Right now, providers often do not know how they are going to get paid, and many bad and extremely expensive things flow from that uncertainty.
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Frankly, universal coverage
Frankly, universal coverage though single payer isn't a terrible idea. There are indeed many problems and a lot of expense that arises from the uncertainty issue.
The real concern that people have, though, is that there's going to be a lot of pressure on a government-run (or at least mostly government-run) health care system to cut costs by simply not providing certain kinds of care. New treatments are likely to be disseminated slowly and with great reluctance. We can also expect cost cutting at the expense of doctors, who are after all horrible rich people, by bureaucrats who then wonder why they can't convince enough people to become doctors...
That's not necessarily a reason not to do it; universal coverage WOULD solve other problems. Assuming we're not suddenly going to spend trillions more on health care all around, it trades the current problem (pretty good care unless you are or become uninsured, in which case sucks to be you) for a different one (less sucks to be you, but everyone's access to care goes down some because of shortages, bad allocation of resources, etc.) But single-payer would streamline a HELL of a lot of paperwork, saving many billions that way, and we might save yet more if people take advantage of government-subsidized preventative care in order to avoid big problems later.
I'd LIKE it to work. I don't trust my employer to get health care issues right any further than I can throw them. And I'll say this - of the liberal proposals going through Congress, this has a much higher chance of actually working than most, or at least of not horribly screwing everything up...
Private Insurance Has Been Terrible for Me
I wrote this on E.D. Kain's site in response to this article: "I am a professional who has the highest level of standard in insurance possible; however, I also have a very rare lymphoma, and my experience with business insurance has been irritating at least and dangerous at most. Yes, insurance has done a lot for me, but it is my vigilence that keeps me alive–the companies would screw me over so badly if I did not fight. In fact, a fellow employee died because his cancer came back, but the hospital could not get him back in for testing. By the time he did get in, it was too late–he had 5 months.
I was forced to leave my insurance this year after rates were raised $4000 for everyone in a single year. Since we have no raises the last few years, I had to go for the cheaper insurance (everyone did also). The coverage is the same. However, transfering information and getting my treatment restarted is a nightmare. I have been without treatment for 4 weeks. I have been told I cannot even have an appointment for 7 more weeks. I am currently throwing a fit because it is like a diabetic being denied insulin for 11 weeeks. One doctor even ridiculed me for leaving the previous insurance. If I were to fully explain the problems I have had with insurance run by business, you would be horrified.
I should be one of the supporters of “choice” and no government option. Yet, when I was on the public option in college (because I was poor), I had much better care, and I was able to actually get from point A to point B without much problem. We need to quit thinking that somehow business works better. Government can work fine (such as with law enforcement). Business should work better, but I feel that there is no humanity in dealing with the business option. Universal healthcare is not a perfect idea, but I suspect I would have a much easier time dealing with my situation if the system was more continuous and connected (let me also just mention that my experience with French healthcare during my three years in France was perfect–the French love it, and the healthcare was much better than our healthcare)."
Update: I went to urgent care today for a matter that should have been resolved if I was in treatment currently. A tumor on my belly started opening, and I am concerned about further growth and infection. If I had been able to do treatment, I would never have gone to urgent care. Luckily, the doctor contacted the doctors who need to treat me and basically said I need to get into treatment immediately. She then gave me antibiotics to stop infection. I am hoping that they will now contact me so I can arrange treatment (this is now the fourth doctor who has contacted them to say I need immediate treatment). Who knows what will happen? This is the weekend, so I have to wait for a call.
Healthcare
Fundamental to any reformed system is to eliminate employment from health insurance. Why is health insurance still connected to employment?
public healthcare
After reading all your comments I have to wonder why so many of you don't get it. Let me run it down for you to see if things can become clearer. Try to clear your mind of the crap you carry due to your political affiliations. First off we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in if the insurance industry charged a fair price for fair service, everybody would be happy. However, health care costs have been spiraling out of control for many years and forced this most unpleasant problem on the public, health providers, and the government. Who forced the issue? The insurance industry forced this issue due to the voracious greed so prevalent within the business community, especially Wall Street investors. Their demand for ever increasing profit drives costs for goods and services up and up. The same business community is continually denying workers any increase in wages and often drives them down or out sources. The cost of managing these giants is phenomenal. The result is that 35% of the money in the health care system is used for administration, exorbitant salaries, excessive profits, oh and lobbying against the best interests of the people. That is one out of every three dollars spent on non health care costs. Add to that the avarice and contempt that the insurance companies display toward their customers after they become claimants and the fact that very often their profits increase by not providing coverage and the stakes should become clear. On the one hand you have the people of this once great nation clamoring for decent health care for all, and on the other you have those who profit on the sick and dying. Oddly enough both sides look for their salvation to the same source of resolution. Those who think government has no role to play need to go back to school. Historically our leaders have supported the profiteers because they get a cut of the booty. Many in Congress will take their cut and legislate against the best interests of the very people that put them there. A very sad lot who will have to answer to the Almighty one day. However there are a few of our leaders who still have a sense of duty and commitment to doing what is right for rights sake. The funny part is none of them will come from the right. The matter of cost is extremely simple. The same donors to the current system pay into single payer. The cost will be less, considerably less without the greedy bastards who brought this on themselves. There is ample oppertunity for private insurers to offer expanded coverage for those who want enhanced care. It's just that the monopoly that has kept the gravy flowing for decades won't have the stranglehold it has enjoyed for decades. That is if the contributions to our elected officials can be overcome by a moral and ethic commitment to our country. The only win for the people will be the passage of HR636.
The elephant in the room is
The elephant in the room is the insurance industry. The majority of people in this country want health care reform, in fact, most like a single payer system when all choices are laid out before them. Getting health care reform should be easy. But it's not. And the reason is that for some reason, the White House and Democrats are afraid to point fingers at the real bad guys - the insurance companies. THESE are what Americans hate. Not doctors, not government bureacrats. Obama could easily win over AMericans by laying blame exactly where it belongs - at the feet of the insurance industry. But the White House refuses to do this instead trying to find some way of making this some "market force" plan. Any meaningful health care reform will have to negatively affect the private insurance industry as it exists today but no one is brave enough to say (or do) this.
America spends a far higher
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.
meladerm