The Hypocrisy and High Stakes of Healthcare Reform 51 comments
Rick Newman
About this author:
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Most people with a stake in the U.S. healthcare system agree there are deep problems that must be fixed. As long as somebody else pays for it.
Virtually all of the problems reformers are struggling to solve—relatively poor health outcomes, medical bankruptcies, nearly 50 million uninsured—derive from one überproblem: Healthcare in America costs too much. So as Congress finally gets close to producing actual reform legislation that could become law, just about every interest group with a Washington lobbyist is fighting intensely to make sure it doesn't get stuck with the bill.
[See how Big Pharma wins from healthcare reform.]
Don't get me wrong. Everybody thinks healthcare reform is a great idea. "The business community," for instance, "is eager to work with Congress to reform the healthcare system," according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The insurance industry supports reform
that covers all Americans, improves quality, and puts the healthcare system on an affordable, sustainable path.
Drug companies favor
comprehensive healthcare reform that would provide all Americans with high-quality health coverage.
Kumbaya.
It's just that many of the groups that embrace reform happen to oppose key provisions of the $829 billion plan proposed by the Senate Finance Committee, generally considered the starting point for whatever a final bill will look like. Industry groups are even more hostile to the idea of a "public option" that would set up a new agency like Medicare to compete with private insurance plans, which is a key part of reform legislation in the House of Representatives. It's almost as if some of the groups most vocal about the need for reform don't actually want it. Hmmm.
Here are some of the inconsistencies in the positions of organizations with big lobbying efforts:
Small business. Companies with fewer than 50 workers could be the biggest beneficiaries of a better healthcare system, because small businesses typically pay more for insurance than big ones or can't afford to offer health coverage at all. The National Federation of Independent Business, the main lobbying group for small businesses, has pushed for more competition among insurance companies, citing studies that show that a small number of big insurers dominate the market in most states, which drives up premiums. And most small businesses that offer healthcare can afford to offer only one plan to their workers. But the NFIB doesn't want a government plan to be part of that competition, because it wouldn't be fair. Instead, NFIB has stated that the same insurers now strangling small businesses
can meet the challenge and can be held accountable to provide solutions that lead to lower costs and greater competition.
As long as the government forces them to, that is.
[See 4 countries with better healthcare than ours.]
Big business. Fortune 500 companies pay a big chunk of the health insurance premiums that go up by two or three times the rate of inflation every year, and lowering those costs is a major corporate priority. But please, regulate somebody else, and leave the majority of big employers alone.
Industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce viciously fight most regulation, but on healthcare, the chamber advocates more regulation of one industry—health insurers—to make insurance cheaper for all other big industries. The chamber also opposes a public option, even if that would mean lower costs for consumers, because it would be uncompetitive and create a "massive new bureaucracy," which presumably would be more onerous than the massive existing healthcare bureaucracy. But like the NFIB, the chamber favors compulsory competition among insurance companies and hopes the government will build a "robust marketplace" for insurance, to drive down premiums. Long live free enterprise.
[See why postal-style healthcare might not be so bad.]
Labor unions. The AFL-CIO and other labor groups insist upon a public option, arguing that it's essential in order to draw more people into the system, lower costs, improve quality, and cover the uninsured. But the same unions oppose the Senate Finance plan to tax the most generous health insurance plans—since many unions have negotiated such plans for their workers.
By taxing "Cadillac" healthcare plans, the Senate Finance plan would raise $215 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which makes it one of the most effective ways to raise money to help pay for other provisions—like a public option. But the unions want to raise money for the reforms they favor through fees and cutbacks on somebody else, not their own members.
[See why health insurers make lousy villains.]
Health insurers. Big insurers like Aetna (AET), UnitedHealth (UNH), Cigna (CI), and the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield system support reform in general because they could gain up to 30 million new customers if more people were covered. But the fewer new customers, the less they like reform, and the whole industry is now having second thoughts. The surest way to generate new insurance customers is to force people to buy coverage, which is another provision of the Senate Finance plan. Good for insurers. But the insurers don't feel the fines levied on violators would be severe enough, which means people would continue to go without insurance, and some of those new customers would fail to materialize.
Two new studies (one here and one here) predict there will be rising costs for everybody, along with plagues and locusts, if the insurers don't get their way. (As a general rule, made-to-order industry studies like these always exaggerate the costs of new regulations and never mention the ways profit-making businesses will adapt in order to keep making money.)
[Read about corporate America's identity crisis.]
Many other interest groups favor reforms that are cheap, easy, or funded by somebody else, while opposing measures that would place a burden on them. And hardly anybody has offered to pay a fair share, since that's a suckers' game that nobody else is willing to play. Add it all up, and the battle over healthcare reform makes America looks like a nation of kindergartners running up to a table of cookies, each determined to grab more than he's been apportioned. Maybe they'll keep making more cookies.
Disclosure: No positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 51 comments:
I'd rather suffer an overpaid doctor than an overpaid insurer, an overpaid administrator, an overpaid claims ajuster, and an overpaid lawyer each using my own money to find some way to prevent me from getting the coverage I already paid for. Do we need some sort of health reform? Most definately!
We no more need the Federal Government to take over our healthcare than we need a Federal bureaucrat picking out our clothes. Wholesale overhaul is complete madness. We need only address the above three issues in the following ways:
1. Each consumer uses his own allowance to buy his own insurance. For those employers who want to provide , fine, but not in purchased insurance, but with money to the employee. For the person who cannot afford insurance, the government provides the consumer with a cash allowance, with the freedom to use it as he would any other life sustaining purchase. For example, food stamps allow the consumer to purchase his own food choices. If food stamps were run like a public option, then the Feds would tell the consumer what brand of bacon to buy, how often he could buy it, and what store he was required to use. How long would anyone stand for that?
2. Doctors would stop over-prescribing procedures and tests if they told the patients what each cost, and what the dangers were if the tests were not done. The two then decide how best to manage the risks and benefits. Out of control lawsuits would be capped. One thing that everyone has forgotten is that the practice of medicine is as much an art as a science. To hold doctors to a standard of infallibility is unfair, as politicians and money managers are clearly not.
3. We are in a global economy and insurance cannot be purchased across state lines. The consumer then overpays to an insurer who is under challenged by the marketplace. This crazy law must be overturned. If you live in Florida and can buy controlled drugs in Canada, why cannot you buy cheaper insurance from Georgia?
None of these reforms cost a dime, no new bureaucracies and entitlements created. Consumers take control of their own health care, insurers would have a more competitive marketplace, and doctors would practice more common sense medicine and less "defensive" medicine.
If the Federal Government has decided that the citizens of this country cannot handle their own healthcare decisions, then what is the next thing they will decide we cannot handle? We must be beware of the unthinkable, because it is already happening.
"Better an honest enemy than a false friend"
This typical over the top fear-mongering is exactly what this debate doesn't need. A public option simply means the government foots the bill for your care and not your health insurance company.
In fact this point is completely ridiculous because for procedures like surgeries your health insurance company will tell you which hospital you can and can't use, whereas in Canada they're the ones who are allowed to shop for different surgeons and get second opinions at will (they have their own issues of course but I'm just rebutting that one point).
Not to mention a cash allowance does nothing to improve the service of lower tier health insurance, for example getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. A public option is not only for people who can't afford health insurance, but also for people who can't get adequate coverage from the health insurance they can afford.
All you're proposing is keeping the status quo while taxpayers hand even more money over to the health insurance companies responsible for this mess of a system.
You seem to believe that the Government played no part in this health care debacle and by your remarks obviously believe Government is the only solution.
"Neither light nor glasses will help those that refuse to see"
On Oct 22 08:21 AM Shaftsinker wrote:
> "If food stamps were run like a public option, then the Feds would
> tell the consumer what brand of bacon to buy, how often he could
> buy it, and what store he was required to use. How long would anyone
> stand for that?"
>
> This typical over the top fear-mongering is exactly what this debate
> doesn't need. A public option simply means the government foots the
> bill for your care and not your health insurance company.
>
> In fact this point is completely ridiculous because for procedures
> like surgeries your health insurance company will tell you which
> hospital you can and can't use, whereas in Canada they're the ones
> who are allowed to shop for different surgeons and get second opinions
> at will (they have their own issues of course but I'm just rebutting
> that one point).
>
> Not to mention a cash allowance does nothing to improve the service
> of lower tier health insurance, for example getting coverage for
> pre-existing conditions. A public option is not only for people who
> can't afford health insurance, but also for people who can't get
> adequate coverage from the health insurance they can afford.
>
> All you're proposing is keeping the status quo while taxpayers hand
> even more money over to the health insurance companies responsible
> for this mess of a system.
If the federal government has the power to run health care it has the power to run everything and that's the end of a republic with a constitution and a free people.
At least half the nation wants "free" health care. That's because that half pays nothing now and for them it's free.
Insurers are doing what they can, but the government is actively rigging the game to make sure insurers can't make money to pave the way for a "public" option.
Hillarycare sank under the waves in 1994 when enough people looked at the byzantine flowchart of the program and said "this is madness." 15 years later, the byzantine chart still exists but more people are looking for "reform," a word that is repeated endlessly in this article and in the propaganda pushing this reform.
Kicking the can down the road is done because sometimes it's better than reform.
Putting the Referee of the football game INTO the game, complete with his own fantasy team and the ability to change the rules at whim... And the armed police powers of the state in his pocket...
Certainly, the game needs to be reformed, updated, the monopolies broken up, the laws upheld and enforce, and the market allowed to function.
But let's keep the Ref on the sidelines, make sure we keep an eye on HIM as well as the players, and keep the rules under OUR control.
Should healthcare be another industry for profit making? Is it moral for profits to be made on healthcare? I'm not talking about 'reasonable' salaries and costs, but whether or not shareholders and others (such as the chief officers of the companies) should profit from the delivery of healthcare, thus raising the cost of healthcare for all?
Most of my foreign friends are appalled that healthcare is just another profit making industry and are also appalled that a nation as rich as the USA does not provide healthcare for all.
On Oct 22 07:32 AM fwi wrote:
> The central problem with health care expenditures is that consumers
> think of their insurance like an all-you-can-eat buffet. They overconsume,
> primarily because "it is already paid for", and they do not know
> what anything costs. Doctors often over-treat because of fear of
> grotesque lawsuits. And insurers only compete within a state, often
> with very few players.
>
> We no more need the Federal Government to take over our healthcare
> than we need a Federal bureaucrat picking out our clothes. Wholesale
> overhaul is complete madness. We need only address the above three
> issues in the following ways:
> 1. Each consumer uses his own allowance to buy his own insurance.
> For those employers who want to provide , fine, but not in purchased
> insurance, but with money to the employee. For the person who cannot
> afford insurance, the government provides the consumer with a cash
> allowance, with the freedom to use it as he would any other life
> sustaining purchase. For example, food stamps allow the consumer
> to purchase his own food choices. If food stamps were run like a
> public option, then the Feds would tell the consumer what brand of
> bacon to buy, how often he could buy it, and what store he was required
> to use. How long would anyone stand for that?
> 2. Doctors would stop over-prescribing procedures and tests if they
> told the patients what each cost, and what the dangers were if the
> tests were not done. The two then decide how best to manage the
> risks and benefits. Out of control lawsuits would be capped. One
> thing that everyone has forgotten is that the practice of medicine
> is as much an art as a science. To hold doctors to a standard of
> infallibility is unfair, as politicians and money managers are clearly
> not.
> 3. We are in a global economy and insurance cannot be purchased
> across state lines. The consumer then overpays to an insurer who
> is under challenged by the marketplace. This crazy law must be overturned.
> If you live in Florida and can buy controlled drugs in Canada, why
> cannot you buy cheaper insurance from Georgia?
>
> None of these reforms cost a dime, no new bureaucracies and entitlements
> created. Consumers take control of their own health care, insurers
> would have a more competitive marketplace, and doctors would practice
> more common sense medicine and less "defensive" medicine.
>
> If the Federal Government has decided that the citizens of this country
> cannot handle their own healthcare decisions, then what is the next
> thing they will decide we cannot handle? We must be beware of the
> unthinkable, because it is already happening.
You friends are in slaved by their government, now your friends are all looking at reduced services because their health insurance cost to the government are to high, your friends are part and partial to the collapse of their economies because they rely on government to wipe their noses, lets see how they react when the cuts many EU nations have said they will be making, riots in the street because without government to provide for them they are lost souls
On Oct 22 10:13 AM Mike from NYC wrote:
> I thought the healthcare issue has never been framed correctly. Like
> any other legal argument presented to challenge a ruling the framing
> of the legal issue is the key. So I posit this:
>
> Should healthcare be another industry for profit making? Is it moral
> for profits to be made on healthcare? I'm not talking about 'reasonable'
> salaries and costs, but whether or not shareholders and others (such
> as the chief officers of the companies) should profit from the delivery
> of healthcare, thus raising the cost of healthcare for all?
>
> Most of my foreign friends are appalled that healthcare is just another
> profit making industry and are also appalled that a nation as rich
> as the USA does not provide healthcare for all.
Everybody except the American voter. From an article dated 10/19/09 in rasmussenreports.com entitled "Healthcare Reform", "Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before..."
A table included in the article shows how vote approval/disapproval has gone from 50% approve/45% disapprove for June 27-28 to 42% approve/54% disapprove for October 16-17. This is a 17 percentage point swing from +5% to -12%.
I guess when the author says "everybody approves", he only refers to the power brokers in Washington D.C., since these are the only people who matter. The American people don't matter.
The "government option" sounds like a solid and reasonable solution. However, if the stated purpose is to provide competition to private insurers, will the government option operate under all of the same restrictions and regulations as do private insurers? If they do not, the playing field is not level and the end-game of this plan becomes apparent; national single-payer healthcare (and this has been clearly cited as a goal by both Obama, Sebelius, and others).
The US has the advantage over many other countries because we can see first hand what various single payer programs offer; both good and bad. In fact, most countries that have some sort of single payer system are struggling with the exact same things that the US is fighting. Rapidly rising costs which are quickly becoming too burdensome to continue. Many of these countries are already flirting with cuts in coverage and "inviting" in supplemental insurance from private insurers. Domestically, we can look at Massachusetts and see that it is costing more than anticipated (surprise, surprise) and that ER visits have not declined at all (ER visits being cited as one example of how poor our system is).
If we are to have any sort of cost control - which is NOT addressed in any meaningful way in any of the bills - we must do something to put the spending control in the hands of the consumer. That is why use of HSA's coupled with catastrophic insurance is attractive to market oriented individuals. It is possible to provide catastrophic coverage and funding of a $1,000 HSA for every American for less than the $1.3 trillion we currently spend on health insurance in the US (inclusive of private, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.). Of course, since the many and varied interests of market participants behave exactly as the author indicates - reform it, but not on my nickel.
As to the quality of healthcare in the US, looking carefully through the WHO reports would seem to indicate that in outcomes, the US rates very well. Where the US is significantly downgraded is in the level of coverage by insurance amoung other things. For instance, if it is the role of the healthcare system to manage obesity, how is that enforced? Would Americans stand for the level of governmental intrusion that would be required to manage obesity levels? Very doubtful that people would want to put their BMI figures on their tax returns.
If we can deliver true coverage for all Americans for less than we currently spend AND put the incentive for living a healthier lifestyle squarely in the hands of the consumer (without governmental monitoring, measuring, etc.), why would we not pursue that course of action? It simply makes no sense to insist that "insurance reform" will solve the problems of rapidly escallating costs.
I have submitted such a plan to a large number of elected officials, cabinet members, and the administration, but it would seem that there is no interest in looking at alternatives that could meet the criteria both the right and left are seeking. Oh well, I guess I'll just shut-up and live with whatever FUBAR healthcare "reform" system we end up with from the self-serving, power hungry, intellectual midgets in DC.
Perfect! This is also why I am betting that the insurance companies are not going to do well when all the dust settles.
On Oct 22 06:58 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> If we just got rid of the heath insurers
> there would be planty of cookies for all of us since they are the
> biggest cookie monsters out there.
> I'd rather suffer an overpaid doctor than an overpaid insurer, an
> overpaid administrator, an overpaid claims ajuster, and an overpaid
> lawyer each using my own money to find some way to prevent me from
> getting the coverage I already paid for.
The base problem with health care in the US is runaway cost. I have a brother who has a small business. Aetna jacked his premiums 10% this year. He has no power to negotiate or control the costs. Every year they jump far more than inflation.
Reform is clearly needed. Unfortunately the Bush administration put it's collective head in the sand on the issue, and Obama is taking the socialistic approach which has definite downsides.
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
Everyone in, nobody out -- one big risk pool, and the bloodsucking insurance companies (with their 30% profit margins) can go to hell.
Medicare operates with a 3% overhead as opposed to the ridiculous profit margins the insurance industry requires.
The U.S. government can and should negotiate drug costs with big-pharma, as do all other government run systems around the world. We don't need to pay their lobbying as well as their advertising costs to pitch us Viagra.
One set of claims/paperwork for care, eliminating the immense beauracratic overhead facing health-care providers as all the hundreds of plans have their own forms, procedures, etc for filing claims.
Healthcare costs for employees would be removed from the backs of business -- large or small, making it possible to hire U.S. workers again and not be at such a disadvantage as it is now vs. hiring foreign labor (who get healthcare provided by their respective governments).
The cost savings of the above would be immense and every citizen could expect quality, affordable care.
National healthcare for all U.S. citizens -- NOW.
The problem is healthcare coverage should be an open and free market, which it isn't. Employer provided health coverage such as in the US, and a fully public medicare system are both unsustainable models, primarily because of the government intervention in both systems. There is plenty of evidence to support this fact, but no evidence indicating that a free market system would be bad, yet no one wants to even consider it. People are greedy and it for nothing, and what happens to demand when a valuable resource is given away for free??
20 years from now, after the politicians have finally destroyed the health care business, those who can afford it will be going to foreign countries for treatment.
I won't be surprised to see some small countries start catering to foreigners, after all the same thing happened when taxation became too oppressive.
On Oct 22 06:58 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> The health insurers have pretty much dropped out of the support column.
> Perhaps that's why the general public is becoming increasingly favorable
> towards a public option. If we just got rid of the heath insurers
> there would be planty of cookies for all of us since they are the
> biggest cookie monsters out there.
>
> I'd rather suffer an overpaid doctor than an overpaid insurer, an
> overpaid administrator, an overpaid claims ajuster, and an overpaid
> lawyer each using my own money to find some way to prevent me from
> getting the coverage I already paid for. Do we need some sort of
> health reform? Most definately!
We also have a home in Florida in a development that is 50% Canadian. An unusual number seem struck by illness on their trip down, usually near Washington, DC, winding up with hip, knee or heart surgery. Hmmm....
My wife's employer is a mid-sized center at the perimeter of a very large Midwestern city. I would think this occurrence would be much greater near our borders and coasts with their large immigrant populations. In fact, I seem to recall a stat that in San Diego, 80% of newborns in the hospitals were born to non US mothers, paid for by the good citizens of California.
Everyone seems to be an expert in the medical field recently. I have had 28 years to be humbled and convinced of my ignorance by my patient wife, who also happens to be an excellent nurse. The field is a lot more complicated, with more severe unintented consequences, than the uneducated or inexperienced can imagine.
On Oct 22 01:27 PM bricki wrote:
> Who comes to America though? Sick heads of state and billionaires.
> People for whom money is not an issue.
>
Insurance companies simply stand between patients and providers, gobbling cash and rationing treatment. They are scumbag middle-men. Their business is making money. It has nothing to do with medicine. You watch too much FOX.
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
All of a sudden alot of personal injury attorneys would stop taking cases on a "no fee unless we recover" business model.
In fact, the plaintiff would have to really look into settlements BEFORE filing the lawsuit.
Not a 100% solution, but would go quite a long way towards reducing lawsuits, thus reducing costs.
From Sether:
"You can argue that America has the best Health Care in the world. That's at least debatable. However, millions of people cannot get it, or cannot get enough of it. Health Care reform will allow people to GET that 'great' health care."
The problem is when those extra "millions of people" access our system will it still be the "best in the world"?
For the so-called healthcare "Reform", you will see the following CHANGE coming your way: -
1) The life-boat that now carries the number "Insured (or paid)" will have to open up and suck in that extra 30 million "uninsured". Nothing comes from nothing. Want to know what this means?
The waiting room in your doctor's office will be more crowdier, the time to book an appointment with your family doctor and specialist will be longer. Forget about same day appointment now.
2) Your current dues on your healthcare cost will rise, and your inocme tax will also rise to pay for the extra load.
So now you understand what he meant by "CHANGE".
I hope he doesn't short-changing me again. I voted for him last year though.
TK
On Oct 22 10:13 AM Mike from NYC wrote:
... I'm not talking about 'reasonable'
> salaries and costs, but whether or not shareholders and others (such
> as the chief officers of the companies) should profit from the delivery
> of healthcare, thus raising the cost of healthcare for all?
>
> Most of my foreign friends are appalled that healthcare is just another
> profit making industry and are also appalled that a nation as rich
> as the USA does not provide healthcare for all.
A country that is interested in maintaining its place at the top of the world makes these kinds of investments in its people. That used to be common sense. Just the fact that we are arguing about this is proof that we are so, so f@cked.
On Oct 22 02:44 PM Steve in TN wrote:
> I read a NY Times article on Canadian health care system in which
> readers from Canada wrote in and stated that they prefer their system
> 10 to 1. I was surprised; but then found out that their system does
> not have enough specialists (too costly) so the Canadian govt. pays
> those that need specialists to travel to the U.S. and will pay 100%
> of their costs. The problem is what happens when we adopt a Canadian
> style health care system when our too costly specialists disappear?
> Where do we send our patients?
>
> From Sether:
> "You can argue that America has the best Health Care in the world.
> That's at least debatable. However, millions of people cannot get
> it, or cannot get enough of it. Health Care reform will allow people
> to GET that 'great' health care."
> The problem is when those extra "millions of people" access our system
> will it still be the "best in the world"?
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
On Oct 22 03:06 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> I bet that many of your foreign friends failed to mention that something
> like 90% of all new drugs and medical procedures and equipment are
> invented in the US, because the US is the only country that has health
> care companies with profits to do any research.
>
> ... I'm not talking about 'reasonable'
On Oct 22 02:56 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:
> Now I understand what Obama meant when he stood on the podium in
> the Fall of 2008 campaigning with that sign "CHANGE" underneath his
> chin.
>
> For the so-called healthcare "Reform", you will see the following
> CHANGE coming your way: -
>
> 1) The life-boat that now carries the number "Insured (or paid)"
> will have to open up and suck in that extra 30 million "uninsured".
> Nothing comes from nothing. Want to know what this means? <br/>
>
> The waiting room in your doctor's office will be more crowdier, the
> time to book an appointment with your family doctor and specialist
> will be longer. Forget about same day appointment now.
>
> 2) Your current dues on your healthcare cost will rise, and your
> inocme tax will also rise to pay for the extra load.
>
> So now you understand what he meant by "CHANGE".
>
> I hope he doesn't short-changing me again. I voted for him last
> year though.
>
> TK
On Oct 22 01:47 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> Medicare for all. period.
> Everyone in, nobody out -- one big risk pool, and the bloodsucking
> insurance companies (with their 30% profit margins) can go to hell.
>
> Medicare operates with a 3% overhead as opposed to the ridiculous
> profit margins the insurance industry requires.
> The U.S. government can and should negotiate drug costs with big-pharma,
> as do all other government run systems around the world. We don't
> need to pay their lobbying as well as their advertising costs to
> pitch us Viagra.
> One set of claims/paperwork for care, eliminating the immense beauracratic
> overhead facing health-care providers as all the hundreds of plans
> have their own forms, procedures, etc for filing claims.
> Healthcare costs for employees would be removed from the backs of
> business -- large or small, making it possible to hire U.S. workers
> again and not be at such a disadvantage as it is now vs. hiring foreign
> labor (who get healthcare provided by their respective governments).
>
> The cost savings of the above would be immense and every citizen
> could expect quality, affordable care.
> National healthcare for all U.S. citizens -- NOW.
My dad's costs went from less than 10% of his income to over 35%.
He only gets $16,000 a year SS.
With "help" like that you can bet that this "reform" is going to fail.
Miserably and at a huge cost.
On Oct 22 02:14 PM sether wrote:
> You can argue that America has the best Health Care in the world.
> That's at least debatable. However, millions of people cannot get
> it, or cannot get enough of it. Health Care reform will allow people
> to GET that 'great' health care.
> Insurance companies simply stand between patients and providers,
> gobbling cash and rationing treatment. They are scumbag middle-men.
> Their business is making money. It has nothing to do with medicine.
> You watch too much FOX.
On Oct 22 03:46 PM TeresaE wrote:
> Congress "helped" seniors.
>
> My dad's costs went from less than 10% of his income to over 35%.
>
>
> He only gets $16,000 a year SS.
>
> With "help" like that you can bet that this "reform" is going to
> fail.
>
> Miserably and at a huge cost.
Blue Cross (non-profit except for the billions in salaries to execs) raised our rates 22% last year and a whopping 30% this year.
With NO claims and NO one on long term meds.
Just wait until Aetna passes on the costs of having MORE government up their butts.
I figure within a year of this going into effect, NO small business will offer insurance anymore. Cheaper to pay the fines and then shove the problem onto our workers dwindling paychecks.
We have to, there is not much else we can do while our customers close and foreign competition kicks our butts.
On Oct 22 01:27 PM bricki wrote:
> Who comes to America though? Sick heads of state and billionaires.
> People for whom money is not an issue.
>
> The base problem with health care in the US is runaway cost. I have
> a brother who has a small business. Aetna jacked his premiums 10%
> this year. He has no power to negotiate or control the costs. Every
> year they jump far more than inflation.
>
> Reform is clearly needed. Unfortunately the Bush administration put
> it's collective head in the sand on the issue, and Obama is taking
> the socialistic approach which has definite downsides.
>
> On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
On Oct 22 03:46 PM TeresaE wrote:
> Congress "helped" seniors.
>
> My dad's costs went from less than 10% of his income to over 35%.
>
>
> He only gets $16,000 a year SS.
>
> With "help" like that you can bet that this "reform" is going to
> fail.
>
> Miserably and at a huge cost.
and while patients have no idea about costs and doctor's do either. i doubt very seriously any one ever signed up for surgery because it didn't cost them any thing. or at best they did that once.
and learned that it was painful. and thats true of almost procedures isn't it?
and not every one will be allowed to buy insurance. you can't do that if you have some really minor conditions they won't write the contract for any amount of money. they will also cancel your contract if they can for any reason if they have a major claim coming (even if it will kill you to not have a procedure). happens all the time
and you still can't buy drugs from Canada. they won't allow that.
you can go there to have surgery if you want (they haven't stopped that. in fact your insurance company might suggest you go to India on a medical vacation.
all insurance is regulated. it all has rules as to what can be sold and what has to offered. and do you really think that buying from another state will really help? and how likely will that state be in helping you when the insurance companies fails to do some thing (like pay a claim?). not likely to be much help there at all
On Oct 22 07:32 AM fwi wrote:
> The central problem with health care expenditures is that consumers
> think of their insurance like an all-you-can-eat buffet. They overconsume,
> primarily because "it is already paid for", and they do not know
> what anything costs. Doctors often over-treat because of fear of
> grotesque lawsuits. And insurers only compete within a state, often
> with very few players.
>
> We no more need the Federal Government to take over our healthcare
> than we need a Federal bureaucrat picking out our clothes. Wholesale
> overhaul is complete madness. We need only address the above three
> issues in the following ways:
> 1. Each consumer uses his own allowance to buy his own insurance.
> For those employers who want to provide , fine, but not in purchased
> insurance, but with money to the employee. For the person who cannot
> afford insurance, the government provides the consumer with a cash
> allowance, with the freedom to use it as he would any other life
> sustaining purchase. For example, food stamps allow the consumer
> to purchase his own food choices. If food stamps were run like a
> public option, then the Feds would tell the consumer what brand of
> bacon to buy, how often he could buy it, and what store he was required
> to use. How long would anyone stand for that?
> 2. Doctors would stop over-prescribing procedures and tests if they
> told the patients what each cost, and what the dangers were if the
> tests were not done. The two then decide how best to manage the
> risks and benefits. Out of control lawsuits would be capped. One
> thing that everyone has forgotten is that the practice of medicine
> is as much an art as a science. To hold doctors to a standard of
> infallibility is unfair, as politicians and money managers are clearly
> not.
> 3. We are in a global economy and insurance cannot be purchased
> across state lines. The consumer then overpays to an insurer who
> is under challenged by the marketplace. This crazy law must be overturned.
> If you live in Florida and can buy controlled drugs in Canada, why
> cannot you buy cheaper insurance from Georgia?
>
> None of these reforms cost a dime, no new bureaucracies and entitlements
> created. Consumers take control of their own health care, insurers
> would have a more competitive marketplace, and doctors would practice
> more common sense medicine and less "defensive" medicine.
>
> If the Federal Government has decided that the citizens of this country
> cannot handle their own healthcare decisions, then what is the next
> thing they will decide we cannot handle? We must be beware of the
> unthinkable, because it is already happening.
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
what are the odds that any business will keep this benefit when its that high?
and business has been dropping this already (down to about 50% of those business that have ever done so).
and why is the rest of the world has solved this problem, but the richest country in the world is helpless to solve it?
The health care system in the US is the main reason why I plan to move back to Europe or emigrate to Australia in the future. It is simply too expensive here and even with coverage the insurance company can deny you care at any time. The US is not a well run country by any means so a gov't run health system might not work out as well here as it does in other places.
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
America doesn't necessarily have the best AVERAGE health care, that is affordable to the average Joe, in the world. Many other nations do better in this regard, even if their high end health care is worse than ours.
The real battle is not about the quality of health care, but rather its accessibility. High end for a few, or a better level of average health care for the average person.
On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:
> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.
It is easy for one to say "...move to Canada...". I lived and worked in Canada in the early eighties before moving down here.
Jobs are so few in Canada, at least in my humble experience, so much so that if one is lucky to find one, one would just hang on to it for life.
TK
On Oct 22 07:03 PM The Geoffster wrote:
> Adopt free market health insurance reforms. If you can't afford your
> premium, move to Canada.
It is because the whole system is politically driven by bought and paid for politicians out of Washington. They pander to special interests and refuse to make any hard choices.
What is needed is a complete revamp from the ground up, including medicare, but that simply will not happen when you have 636 rabid politicians deciding what "we" need.
people being less healthy there than here, and the cost is 60% less.
maybe because they have a healthier life style. in the us fat is in.
heve an extra fat tax on each insured and see the usage drop.
I would have to concur with you that the 636 you mentioned do look much like a bunch of those in a Prep School with the Boys in Oxford Blue jackets and Pearl White trousers, and the Girls in Maroon jackets. They all have their distinctive school ties though.
Teutonic Knight
On Oct 22 10:25 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> The biggest single problem in health care is not the insurance companies,
> or the doctors, or the drug companies.
>
> It is because the whole system is politically driven by bought and
> paid for politicians out of Washington. They pander to special interests
> and refuse to make any hard choices.
>
> What is needed is a complete revamp from the ground up, including
> medicare, but that simply will not happen when you have 636 rabid
> politicians deciding what "we" need.
This is not to say that bottlenecks don’t arise or that patients don’t face wait time on occasion. There is a constant tension, as you would expect, between the desire to provide optimum service in a timely manner and the need to control the rate of growth of cost in the system. Generally a good balance is maintained, however.
On Oct 22 02:44 PM Steve in TN wrote:
> I read a NY Times article on Canadian health care system in which
> readers from Canada wrote in and stated that they prefer their system
> 10 to 1. I was surprised; but then found out that their system does
> not have enough specialists (too costly) so the Canadian govt. pays
> those that need specialists to travel to the U.S. and will pay 100%
> of their costs. The problem is what happens when we adopt a Canadian
> style health care system when our too costly specialists disappear?
> Where do we send our patients?
>
> From Sether:
> "You can argue that America has the best Health Care in the world.
> That's at least debatable. However, millions of people cannot get
> it, or cannot get enough of it. Health Care reform will allow people
> to GET that 'great' health care."
> The problem is when those extra "millions of people" access our system
> will it still be the "best in the world"?
On Oct 28 04:35 PM bob adamson wrote:
> It isn’t that the health care plans in Canada don’t generally have
> enough specialists; it’s that it is too inefficient and ineffective
> in many areas of a large country with a dispersed population to provide
> doctors in each specialty in sufficient numbers to handle peak demand
> for all conceivable services (especially occasionally demanded service).
> When the occasion arises for a specialist or a procedure and these
> are not locally available (or not available in a timely fashion to
> prevent threat to life or serious treat to the future quantity of
> life), the case is usually outsourced to another community in Canada
> or to a US facility with the cost largely covered by the health plan.
>
>
> This is not to say that bottlenecks don’t arise or that patients
> don’t face wait time on occasion. There is a constant tension, as
> you would expect, between the desire to provide optimum service in
> a timely manner and the need to control the rate of growth of cost
> in the system. Generally a good balance is maintained, however.<br/>
Put your point another way though. You as an individual would be paying in while you were young and healthy and the plan would be well funded because the society as a whole would be contributing and be able to cover
1. your legitimate health care needs if something unexpected happened to you (or your partner or kids) while you’re young and
2. you when your (and your partner's) health care needs are greater and your income smaller later in life.
Further, your contribution at each stage of your life would be calibrated to you ability to pay at that stage, not the actual cost or risk of your current health (or that of a family member) at that point in time. Also you would not be at risk of becoming a financial burden in relation to health care costs on other members of your family or them on you.
bob adamson
On Oct 22 04:09 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> If we had "Medicare for all", then the young and the healthy (the
> type private insurance companies prefer to cherry-pick) would be
> subsidizing seniors and others that the for-profit leeches prefer
> to dump on the government anyways. N'est ces pas ?