These aren’t talking points numbnuts. Do your research and find out why the rest of the civilized, FREE world has adopted pretty much the same systems. Because they work. And the citizens pay for it. It’s not for free super genius.
By the way, we are still the only country in the world that still uses feet, inches and gallons as units of measurments while everyone else is on the metric system. Hell, even our military and doctors use the metric system. We’re just to stupid to get it.
There is a better way to to do health care in this country than what has been passed but, majority of the people will still say “it’s too much government” and our government is just to inept from executing good measures to improve our health care system.
We could have our cost to GDP down to less than 10% – 11% and our admin cost down around 8% or so. Low insurance premiums that everyone could afford, no policy rescinding, no exclusions fro pre-exisiting conditions and if you loose your employment, you don’t loose your coverage.
But, we’re too compounded by politics and stupid people to do so.
You are right, there is a better way, with numerous proposals provided by the other side of the aisle. However those are not included because this is strictly a democrat bill. I believe they wanted to get it done regardless for their hero…. and now its the Dems way or the highway. They want the credit and the power to say they did…. (wonder if any are short?)
This is a catastrophe for america.
Yes, there is a solution. Let’s go with a single payer plan so we don’t have to cover private insurance profits, huge CEO salaries, marketing cost, etc., etc. Health insurance companies bring little to the table but an extra layer of cost. However, as was mentioned, for polictial reasons, single payer was never put on the table. For comparison, look at the cost per person in every other western country v in the US. Their cost are around 50% of our cost with equal of better outcomes.
The Democrats bill is bloated and doesn’t really do anything to strike at the drivers of health care costs. But I keep reading and rereading the summaries of the Republicans plans and I don’t see anything to control costs either. The Democrats plan is more Socialist, but the Republican plan tries to treat Health Insurance like real honest to goodness insurance, and it’s just not, nor should it be treated as such.
Here’s what other FREE western democracies are doing and it works. Well at least better than us.
Japan – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8
Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.
Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.
Germany – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7
Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients’ income.
Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.
Taiwan – Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3
Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.
Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.
Switzerland – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6
Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.
Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.
Yes Allen, there is a Santa Clause. Along with everything for free, we will all be getting lollipops with our health care. You and youngidiot need to stop posting talking points. Nobody with an IQ acually believes you can increase coverage and decrease costs. Liberal economics, based on moveon.org fairy tails.
I’m not classy? Allen is using profanity on a professional web site and I’m less than acceptable? Do your own research Allen. This is the United States, not the rest of the world. Our research and development of drugs and medical procedures leads the world. How do out of date surveys by anti American organizations tell any kind of story? Nobody on this site will deny the need for reform of the health industry. This is not it. Costs are out of control due to a number of factors. Insurance costs and regulation are a tiny part of the problem. This is a government takeover of a private industry. Government does not do things better. Our government has slipped it’s leash and is gradually beginning to resemble Venezuela. People like Allen and youngin are simply ignorant followers. I will ignore your postings from now on. Do me the same favor trolls.
I’m a follower of no one, and not a supporter of socialized medicine. Being critical of Republicans is not the same as being supportive of Democrats. Unfortunately the two party system encourages people to think that way. My point is that the system needs reform, the Democrats plan is typical bloated Washington pork, but the Republicans are not offering a viable alternative. They believe the fundamentals of the current system are sound and their proposals constitute “tweaks” that do very little to control costs and won’t do much to increase availability. They wish to continue to stick their heads in the sand and don’t have any more political will to effect REAL change than the Democrats have.
The reforms I would like to see happen are being offered by neither party, because they would mean standing up to a lot of special interests:
Move away from the 3rd party payer model. Force health care providers to provide up-front information about pricing of their services. People should have high-deductible policies, with the majority of their health care costs funded directly by them through HSAs (I suggest they be mandatory, but subsidized for poor people). The high-deductible policies should provide stop loss coverage at a certain threshold, and also provide coverage for very expensive procedures on a coinsurance basis.
Tort reform: I do not think caps are the silver bullet to curbing malpractice premiums that people believe them to be. They may be useful but need to be carefully crafted in order to not have undesirable side effects. I think prospective medical malpractice lawsuits should have to go through a special “medical grand jury” process where medical professionals decide whether there is enough evidence of negligence to go to trial. This should cut down on the frequency of lawsuits by weeding out most of the frivolous cases.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. The Republicans will gain undeserved political capital from this reform attempt simply by being “the other party”. And that’s not good enough for me.
The only problem with having a “medical grand jury” is that there is a big chance that they will be bias in favor of the doctor when there are “grey areas” regardling negligence of the doctor. The problem I see is that people are so sue happy and if a procedure doesn’t go the way they want it to, bam, its a way to get rich quick.
But I have asked time and time again, and have not recieved an answer. I hear all the Dems saying that thier health reform bill will lower costs. My question is…. how? How is forcing insurance companies and risks that they dont want to insure because they are high risk going to LOWER the cost of health care?
The only explanation that I have heard is that everyone pays into the system. They will either have to get insured or taxed. But I do not see how that is going to cover the additional risk and all of the additional taxes.
Anyone that wants the federal govt to run any more of the health care system than it does at this point needs to look around at the other programs that they control. The post office is bankrupt, social security is a disaster, medicare and medicade are a mess. They are needed to help negotiate a better way but not to take control.
Do what other FREE, industrialized countries do and have a health ministry negotiate the pricing between the health insurance companies and the medical service providers. There could only be one fixed price for all services and procedures and there couldn’t be motivation for profit. People would be mandated to purchase the insurance of their choice either through their employer, with the employer paying a portion and individuals would go through an exchage. The unemployed would be on something like Medicade until they found employment and that would run out in a year.
Anyone would be able to pick and choose their doctors as they see fit. No waiting for anything. Costs go down and then America’s cost to GDP is around 8% or better and admin costs are about 12% or so. Right now they are double that.
This is not socialization here. Government involvement, yes. But it’s not socialized. Doctors and hospitals are still private.
“Nobody Important” is to bull headed to understand the difference or even have an open mind to at least look into it.
It sounds good in theory, but what happens when the costs outweighs the amount they are collecting? Its just not fiscally possible.
Also, if everyone then becomes insured, what will prevent everybosy and their brother running to the hospital for the case of the sniffles because “Hey, I dont have to pay for it, the insurance does”. Answer, you get looooooong lines and even the people that need immediate treatment have to wait. If you take out the modivation for profit, how many people do you think are going to want to go to school to become doctors then? “I have to go thru 8+ years of college, get hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, and NOT get rich? Forget all that. Let me do 4 years and open my own business”.
So how I see it, America could not afford it (set the rates too low, the goverment goes bankrupt, or set the rates too high and the American people go bankrupt), there will be a lot more traffic in hospitals, so wait time would be much higher, and there are no insentives for people to become dotors, so we have less doctors. Sounds like a lose/lose situation for everyone.
I do have a hard time understanding when people say “Thousands of people die a year because they don’t have health insurance”. Hospitals can not turn anyone away, even if they can not pay, so the only way I see them dying is because they just don’t go to the hospital.
It’s always agree with me or YOU are ignorant, the usual liberal mantra. I’m bull headed because I find his position unsupportable with actual facts? So do the majority of AMERICANS. If other countries do something different it’s because they want to. So what? Keep posting those liberal talking points.
TX – this is true. If the amount taken in is not balanced with the amount of output it can’t sustain. Other countries have experienced this to where it put hospital costs in the red. So, they need to spend more to recoup and make it balanced.
As far as running to the hospital every chance you get. Not likely as they do have co-pays. They’re cheap however. But how many people do you know enjoy going to the doctors office whenever they can? No one really goes because they have the sniffles or some tick tack ailment. Yes, some do but most do not. I myself have a $10 co-pay and I hardly ever go unless I have to.
The other FREE, industrialized countries I mentioned before do make money to cover inventory, salaries and overhead etc. Even with the profit motivation missing, the doctors still make real good livings. Not like the doctors here in the US but good enough to live on very well. With the exception of Germany where many feel under paid for the amount of work they do. One flip side is that there admin cost are dirt cheap, mal practive insurance is around $1,100 a year and they go to med school for free. If your in this profession, it’s not about the money, it’s about helping people.
They are effcient because there is no motivation to make a profit. Just like the State Funds that are out there.
Your case regarding how hospitals do not turn away people? True. In the case of going to the emergency room. Then that cost gets paid for by us, the tax payers. The thing that doesn’t come into play is diagnosing a disease before it spreads. Thats what they are talking about when they say lots of people die for not having insurance.
Now to nobody important – you haven’t stated any facts. I’v backed up what I say with numbers, stats and proof. What you fail to do is READ IT or even ask questions about it like TX did. At least he’s asking questions. That’s what makes you narrow minded and bull headed.
Well I am glad you have noticed that I don’t just say “It won’t work!” and hate something just because it isnt “conservitive”. I like to ask questions because that is the only way to gain more knowledge. I hate being uninformed or misinformed on major subjects like helath care. The two problems I have with having a government option is 1. I doubt it could be fiscally stable without overcharging people. I have seen firsthand what happens when a company undercharges (go out of business). The second issue I have with it is that besides “getting everyone insured”, it still does not address how to lower the overall cost of health care. If these two factors were resolved (which I think is quite possible) I might be on the health care bandwagon.
To my conservitive friends, I ask you think. How would having government health care be a “power grab”? I am not asking this sarcasticly, I really want to understand how you come to this conclusion.
Right on. Those are legit concerns. There is a study on the health care findings I just started reading that was posted by the Lewin Group (which is owned by United Health Care) and posted on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which is trying to create awareness on our fiscal deficits and the whole we’ve dug ourselves into regarding our nations debt. There is another study by the Concord Coalition as well.
There is also a documentry put out by the Peterson G. Peterson Foundation called “I.O.U.S.A.” and it is all about our nations debt and fiscal irresponsibility. It’s alarming! One of the things they mention at the end is the need for health care reform.
These aren’t talking points numbnuts. Do your research and find out why the rest of the civilized, FREE world has adopted pretty much the same systems. Because they work. And the citizens pay for it. It’s not for free super genius.
By the way, we are still the only country in the world that still uses feet, inches and gallons as units of measurments while everyone else is on the metric system. Hell, even our military and doctors use the metric system. We’re just to stupid to get it.
Get it?
There is a better way to to do health care in this country than what has been passed but, majority of the people will still say “it’s too much government” and our government is just to inept from executing good measures to improve our health care system.
We could have our cost to GDP down to less than 10% – 11% and our admin cost down around 8% or so. Low insurance premiums that everyone could afford, no policy rescinding, no exclusions fro pre-exisiting conditions and if you loose your employment, you don’t loose your coverage.
But, we’re too compounded by politics and stupid people to do so.
You are right, there is a better way, with numerous proposals provided by the other side of the aisle. However those are not included because this is strictly a democrat bill. I believe they wanted to get it done regardless for their hero…. and now its the Dems way or the highway. They want the credit and the power to say they did…. (wonder if any are short?)
This is a catastrophe for america.
Yes, there is a solution. Let’s go with a single payer plan so we don’t have to cover private insurance profits, huge CEO salaries, marketing cost, etc., etc. Health insurance companies bring little to the table but an extra layer of cost. However, as was mentioned, for polictial reasons, single payer was never put on the table. For comparison, look at the cost per person in every other western country v in the US. Their cost are around 50% of our cost with equal of better outcomes.
The Democrats bill is bloated and doesn’t really do anything to strike at the drivers of health care costs. But I keep reading and rereading the summaries of the Republicans plans and I don’t see anything to control costs either. The Democrats plan is more Socialist, but the Republican plan tries to treat Health Insurance like real honest to goodness insurance, and it’s just not, nor should it be treated as such.
Yep, Fred and Youngin’ you’re both right.
Here’s what other FREE western democracies are doing and it works. Well at least better than us.
Japan – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8
Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.
Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.
Germany – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7
Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients’ income.
Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.
Taiwan – Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3
Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.
Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.
Switzerland – Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6
Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.
Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.
See the rest: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
Yes Allen, there is a Santa Clause. Along with everything for free, we will all be getting lollipops with our health care. You and youngidiot need to stop posting talking points. Nobody with an IQ acually believes you can increase coverage and decrease costs. Liberal economics, based on moveon.org fairy tails.
Classy, Nobody.
I’m not classy? Allen is using profanity on a professional web site and I’m less than acceptable? Do your own research Allen. This is the United States, not the rest of the world. Our research and development of drugs and medical procedures leads the world. How do out of date surveys by anti American organizations tell any kind of story? Nobody on this site will deny the need for reform of the health industry. This is not it. Costs are out of control due to a number of factors. Insurance costs and regulation are a tiny part of the problem. This is a government takeover of a private industry. Government does not do things better. Our government has slipped it’s leash and is gradually beginning to resemble Venezuela. People like Allen and youngin are simply ignorant followers. I will ignore your postings from now on. Do me the same favor trolls.
I’m a follower of no one, and not a supporter of socialized medicine. Being critical of Republicans is not the same as being supportive of Democrats. Unfortunately the two party system encourages people to think that way. My point is that the system needs reform, the Democrats plan is typical bloated Washington pork, but the Republicans are not offering a viable alternative. They believe the fundamentals of the current system are sound and their proposals constitute “tweaks” that do very little to control costs and won’t do much to increase availability. They wish to continue to stick their heads in the sand and don’t have any more political will to effect REAL change than the Democrats have.
The reforms I would like to see happen are being offered by neither party, because they would mean standing up to a lot of special interests:
Move away from the 3rd party payer model. Force health care providers to provide up-front information about pricing of their services. People should have high-deductible policies, with the majority of their health care costs funded directly by them through HSAs (I suggest they be mandatory, but subsidized for poor people). The high-deductible policies should provide stop loss coverage at a certain threshold, and also provide coverage for very expensive procedures on a coinsurance basis.
Tort reform: I do not think caps are the silver bullet to curbing malpractice premiums that people believe them to be. They may be useful but need to be carefully crafted in order to not have undesirable side effects. I think prospective medical malpractice lawsuits should have to go through a special “medical grand jury” process where medical professionals decide whether there is enough evidence of negligence to go to trial. This should cut down on the frequency of lawsuits by weeding out most of the frivolous cases.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. The Republicans will gain undeserved political capital from this reform attempt simply by being “the other party”. And that’s not good enough for me.
The only problem with having a “medical grand jury” is that there is a big chance that they will be bias in favor of the doctor when there are “grey areas” regardling negligence of the doctor. The problem I see is that people are so sue happy and if a procedure doesn’t go the way they want it to, bam, its a way to get rich quick.
But I have asked time and time again, and have not recieved an answer. I hear all the Dems saying that thier health reform bill will lower costs. My question is…. how? How is forcing insurance companies and risks that they dont want to insure because they are high risk going to LOWER the cost of health care?
The only explanation that I have heard is that everyone pays into the system. They will either have to get insured or taxed. But I do not see how that is going to cover the additional risk and all of the additional taxes.
Anyone that wants the federal govt to run any more of the health care system than it does at this point needs to look around at the other programs that they control. The post office is bankrupt, social security is a disaster, medicare and medicade are a mess. They are needed to help negotiate a better way but not to take control.
Do what other FREE, industrialized countries do and have a health ministry negotiate the pricing between the health insurance companies and the medical service providers. There could only be one fixed price for all services and procedures and there couldn’t be motivation for profit. People would be mandated to purchase the insurance of their choice either through their employer, with the employer paying a portion and individuals would go through an exchage. The unemployed would be on something like Medicade until they found employment and that would run out in a year.
Anyone would be able to pick and choose their doctors as they see fit. No waiting for anything. Costs go down and then America’s cost to GDP is around 8% or better and admin costs are about 12% or so. Right now they are double that.
This is not socialization here. Government involvement, yes. But it’s not socialized. Doctors and hospitals are still private.
“Nobody Important” is to bull headed to understand the difference or even have an open mind to at least look into it.
It sounds good in theory, but what happens when the costs outweighs the amount they are collecting? Its just not fiscally possible.
Also, if everyone then becomes insured, what will prevent everybosy and their brother running to the hospital for the case of the sniffles because “Hey, I dont have to pay for it, the insurance does”. Answer, you get looooooong lines and even the people that need immediate treatment have to wait. If you take out the modivation for profit, how many people do you think are going to want to go to school to become doctors then? “I have to go thru 8+ years of college, get hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, and NOT get rich? Forget all that. Let me do 4 years and open my own business”.
So how I see it, America could not afford it (set the rates too low, the goverment goes bankrupt, or set the rates too high and the American people go bankrupt), there will be a lot more traffic in hospitals, so wait time would be much higher, and there are no insentives for people to become dotors, so we have less doctors. Sounds like a lose/lose situation for everyone.
I do have a hard time understanding when people say “Thousands of people die a year because they don’t have health insurance”. Hospitals can not turn anyone away, even if they can not pay, so the only way I see them dying is because they just don’t go to the hospital.
It’s always agree with me or YOU are ignorant, the usual liberal mantra. I’m bull headed because I find his position unsupportable with actual facts? So do the majority of AMERICANS. If other countries do something different it’s because they want to. So what? Keep posting those liberal talking points.
I stepped over several dead bodies on my way to work this morning TX. If I were a real conservative I would have spit on them too.
TX – this is true. If the amount taken in is not balanced with the amount of output it can’t sustain. Other countries have experienced this to where it put hospital costs in the red. So, they need to spend more to recoup and make it balanced.
As far as running to the hospital every chance you get. Not likely as they do have co-pays. They’re cheap however. But how many people do you know enjoy going to the doctors office whenever they can? No one really goes because they have the sniffles or some tick tack ailment. Yes, some do but most do not. I myself have a $10 co-pay and I hardly ever go unless I have to.
The other FREE, industrialized countries I mentioned before do make money to cover inventory, salaries and overhead etc. Even with the profit motivation missing, the doctors still make real good livings. Not like the doctors here in the US but good enough to live on very well. With the exception of Germany where many feel under paid for the amount of work they do. One flip side is that there admin cost are dirt cheap, mal practive insurance is around $1,100 a year and they go to med school for free. If your in this profession, it’s not about the money, it’s about helping people.
They are effcient because there is no motivation to make a profit. Just like the State Funds that are out there.
Your case regarding how hospitals do not turn away people? True. In the case of going to the emergency room. Then that cost gets paid for by us, the tax payers. The thing that doesn’t come into play is diagnosing a disease before it spreads. Thats what they are talking about when they say lots of people die for not having insurance.
Now to nobody important – you haven’t stated any facts. I’v backed up what I say with numbers, stats and proof. What you fail to do is READ IT or even ask questions about it like TX did. At least he’s asking questions. That’s what makes you narrow minded and bull headed.
Well I am glad you have noticed that I don’t just say “It won’t work!” and hate something just because it isnt “conservitive”. I like to ask questions because that is the only way to gain more knowledge. I hate being uninformed or misinformed on major subjects like helath care. The two problems I have with having a government option is 1. I doubt it could be fiscally stable without overcharging people. I have seen firsthand what happens when a company undercharges (go out of business). The second issue I have with it is that besides “getting everyone insured”, it still does not address how to lower the overall cost of health care. If these two factors were resolved (which I think is quite possible) I might be on the health care bandwagon.
To my conservitive friends, I ask you think. How would having government health care be a “power grab”? I am not asking this sarcasticly, I really want to understand how you come to this conclusion.
Right on. Those are legit concerns. There is a study on the health care findings I just started reading that was posted by the Lewin Group (which is owned by United Health Care) and posted on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which is trying to create awareness on our fiscal deficits and the whole we’ve dug ourselves into regarding our nations debt. There is another study by the Concord Coalition as well.
There is also a documentry put out by the Peterson G. Peterson Foundation called “I.O.U.S.A.” and it is all about our nations debt and fiscal irresponsibility. It’s alarming! One of the things they mention at the end is the need for health care reform.
See http://www.concordcoalition.org/ and http://www.pgpf.org/
Also watch this. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
This is the right one. http://video.pbs.org/video/1050712790/
Then compare it to this one.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1099857730/