If fraud and waste were addressed, the current health care we have now would be affordable for everyone. And, rein in the attorneys. A family wins the judgment lottery because 80 yr old grandma died from a kidney transplant. Give me a break.
If the majority of us already have health coverage, why is this being forced down our throats? In Nevada, 88% have coverage and 12% do not. What/who is really behind all this? Something’s not right. Someone is pulling Obama’s strings who in turn is pulling Reid’s.
The Bill does nothing to contain costs, which was touted as one of the main reasons we needed it. Rather the Bill suddenly brings several now uninsured people into the fold. It sould be no suprise that additional revenue (some form of a tax) is required to pay for the millions who would become insured.
This is nothing more than income redistribution.
Healthcare is NOT a right. Rights can only be political, never economic. No one has a right to something paid for by someone else.
Healthcare needs to be revised, however this in not a revision, it is a Bill requiring those of us who already pay for their healthcare to contribute to another person’s need. Need does not create a right.
…not meant to start a war on IJ. Doesn’t everyone that’s insured now currenty subsidize the uninsured? The uninsured may skip preventative care, but when they’re really sick/injured they use the emergency room or Urgent Care. Who pays for those trips?
Correct Bob…health care is NOT a right. There are millions who can afford health insurance either individually or through their employer who chose not to. Some choose to buy boats, TV’s or whatever and not insurance. When these bottom feeders get sick they expect coverage in an emergency room. And now..if passed…one can buy insurance on the way to the hospital since pre-existing condition will not be a constraint. Either way, those of us who pay now will pay more for the bottom feeders. It will be less cost for bottom feeders to pay the fine as opposed to the premium under the proposed new rules.
Income redistribution pure and simple and those entitlement minded bottom feeders will continue to suck the life from those of us who pay. The same idiot who asked me to insure his boat sitting in a marina uninsured with hurricane hugo on the way.
Honest….
We do pay for them. No doubt about it.
Interestingly the complaints are now that our insurance is too high. Tomorrow with socialized medicine, all “Honest” reports show the costs and taxes for insurance will go up, hence the reason they are taxing the cadillac plans.
Uninsured can go to county health, its cheap. There is only 10 % of the population that is supposedly increasing the cost of insurance for 85% of Americans insured. Does not make sense.
Question to you> If we pay for them now, why change the system to pay more for them tomorrow?
Message to Allan: I looked at the site you cited. Very poor attempt at liberal spin.
the problem with your website is this number is converted to US dollars. You forget that in Thialand the average weekly wage is about $120. so $200 am month is not the same as $200 here. I dont think we could get a doctor with 7 years of school and 2 years of internship to work here for $27,000. a year, do you?
Well, some of them actually pay their own bills. But yes, “uncompensated care” is a factor in overall hospital costs, which in turn are a factor in health insurance premiums.
Yes, we (the taxpayor) currently pay for healthcare and many other benefits that some 1) cannot pay for, and 2) choose not to pay for. It has been this way since the beginning of time. But, if the Fed truly wanted to “fix” the system, it would concentrate on finding ways to get these people documented into the system, to determine and then to spread the cost of their benefits, to mandate that these people pay SOMETHING, and to mandate that they get periodic health screenings as a requirement to receive free or heavily subsidized benefits. Just tie it to their welfare, unemployment check, or Earned Income Tax Credit refund (or something like that) and I guarantee they will comply. Right now, the Feds plan will completely dismantle a system that serves 270 million+ to fund benefits for the 30 million who cannot or choose not to pay for their benefits. You do not destroy a system that meets the needs of 90% of the population, to cover the uninsured/ underinsured 10%! Cover them, yes; but demand and expect some accountability.
1. Can anyone give me an example of a government “insurance” program that has been run well enough to maintain a surplus of funds and not have any unfunded liabilities?
2. Can anyone give me an example of where the Government has not politicized a government program to where what is done is always politically correct and any actuarilly supported data is ignored.
Sarah – that is a valid an good point. But what about the European Nations where the Euro is more expensive than the dollar?
The other thing that someone else posted was about the people not having insurance and buying misc. items like boats and cars etc. True. They would be the bottom feeders. However, there are also employeed persons who had medical through their employee and were laid off. Guess what happend to their coverage? Do you think they can pay their bills plus COBRA while looking for other employment? Then they get sick or have a heart attack.
Guess who pays for that?
I’m not trying to spin anything here. We have a serious problem in this country with the current system. Even David Walker (former GAO Comptroller) and other leading people regarding our national debt agree that we have to reform our healt system if we are going to get out of the fiscal whole we’ve dug ourselves.
To John: I agree that paying more for the uninsured after the bill passes (assuming it does) makes no sense. I just don’t believe I have enough info to say that will be the end result. I know most people are assuming that, but I can’t frame an argument or response around my relatively limited knowledge of this bill.
I recently took a 2-hour trip to the ER for three stitches in my finger. It would have cost me $1500 if I had no insurance. I have no idea how someone making $25-$30k per year would pay for that, no less a major illness or surgery. I’m not implying that this bill is God’s gift to good legislation, so what alternatives are there to eliminating people who essentially get ‘free coverage’ even though they are uninsured? Tort reform would lower premiums, but may not fully address this issue.
Those are some good points and I completely agree. We need much stronger and more fiscally conservative leadership in both houses and in the white house.
Ask any person from England if they like the healthcare they are getting?
Sorry Allan but the answer to all this is exposed in the website you cited, just not the way you want it to be. Here it is;
The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to reduce the amount of healthcare you get or reduce the cost of that healthcare. Just like in Canada and Great Brit. The doctors there make about 20,000. Eu. or 50,000 CD. and you can not get an elective surgery for about 18 months if at all. Dont try to get a knee replacement in Canada or England.
Your site you cite, exposes exactly the argument against what you want.
If they were really interested in “helping” the uninsured, we need tort,
drug, malpractice and hospital cost reform. None of this is addressed but then they are all in the pockets of the Dems or vice versa. Where are we getting the money to send to Haiti?
To Honest:
Don’t feel bad if you don’t understand the bill, because of your limited knowledge. You probably have as much knowledge about the bill (maybe more) than the Congress who are supporting the bill and voting along the Democrat Party Line. The limited knowledge we do have about the bill is more than enough to have the bill scrapped and a necessity to start over.Reform needs to happen, but not by allowing Congress to plunge our The United States into chaos and more debt.
Sarah – 1. I also said skip the UK. Their system is flawed but according to reports, it is getting better. The wait time is a lot less than it was several years ago.
2. You only cite England and Canda. The website I referred to never said anything about Canada. Plus, there are more FREE, industrialized democracies in Europe besides England who have a universal system that it’s citizens pay for. Not the government.
Allan, you said the following, ” there are more FREE, industrialized democracies in Europe.
Well, here in the US you are not FREE if you are forced to buy a product and fined if you dont. You are not FREE if you have to pay for someone elses salary if they dont want to work. You are not FREE if the Government takes 50% of everything you earn. Those countries you are so fond of are not FREE.
Your input on more fiscally conservative representatives in Congress is the wisest of all comments I’ve seen. I would add the WH and honesty. We should not limit our disgust with Congress to their legislation, but also address them weekly/ daily with emails and calls,then ultimately at the polls.
Sarah – yes that is true regarding a madate to purchase the coverage. It does hamper one’s freedoms and I do not agree with this and have stated it before. However, you have to look at the scoreboard.
I would like to see some other way to pool costs together other than forcing one to purchase something and getting fined if they don’t.
Allan, your whole argument for national healthcare based on GDP is flawed. We import more than any other country in the world, therefore the GDP has very little relevance at all to the quality or cost of our healthcare system.
I as most americans (CNN poll) 57% are opposed to this bill. It does not save any money actually increases the cost (GAO figures) and is full of pay offs to special intrest groups and borderline illegal senate dealings. Ben Lets make a deal Nelson or the Louisianna purchase of Landreau.
THIS BILL SHOULD DIE!
Talk to me again about this when you liberals can put something together without breaking the law and actually reduce the cost of healthcare.
Here’s a compromise for you…since the majority of the people do not want (this) healthcare reform, let’s put the billions, if not trillions, of dollars into something the people want and something that is actually FOR the people? What a concept….
If this is such a good bill, as politicians would have us believe, how come they can’t seem to agree on its details? I would think a “good” bill would sail right through Congress. Oh, maybe its because of conflicting ideologies and pandering. Gee, what a great government we have! Never mind what is good for the people.
The better question is, if its such a great bill, why aren’t the congress men and women forced to be placed on this plan if it goes thru? But then again, if need be, they would be able to afford whatever isn’t covered under the bill.
The majority of Americans want healthcare reform, they are just uncomfortable with this bill, as I am.
However, I would like to hear the critics suggest how they would fix health care.
Note that there are TWO problems which need to be fixed: availability and cost (for those who do not believe healthcare is a necessity for everyone, I guess there’s only ONE problem then).
I already cited one specific example of why our costs may be higher:
Four screws inserted into an Open Reduction Internal Fixation (surgical repair of a fracture) are more expensive than two screws, and it’s also more expensive than having NO SURGERY, which you may actually need for proper medical care. You might not get your surgery at all in another country….they may throw you in a cast and hope for the best….. That’s why their costs are lower! They don’t get the care!
AMA guidelines for preventive care largely dictate what is covered under health policies….so, if our medical system deems colonoscopies necessary or advisable for those with family history of colon cancer, there’s a bill for $5000 for a colonoscopy. It’s not free….it costs more money to get better care. Perhaps European doctors don’t consider things “necessary preventive care” like we do…..perhaps that’s because their system doesn’t want to pay for it. This is exactly what had people upset when recently the government indicated that PAP smears are no longer necessary annually….nor are mammograms….
Because when the medical profession doesn’t “recommend” these things, insurance doesn’t usually cover them, and you usually don’t get them…then the insurance company doesn’t have to pay for them…….the only problem with that dreamy analysis is that you may DIE. Which is why Obama’s desired expansion of the National Health Corp to train a bunch of doctor’s doesn’t leave me exicted to be insured by Obama…..Abortions for welfare are in, but my mammo is out….Unless I want to pay for it myself.
First, the distribution of compensation in the United States is wider than in most of the other industrialized countries. The highly trained and highly talented health professionals employed in health care must be recruited from the same talent pool used by other industries offering high compensation, such as law and finance. Because health care is a labor-intensive industry, labor is one factor driving up the cost of producing health care in the United States.
Second, the highly fragmented organization of the financing of health care in the United States serves to allocate relatively greater market power to the supply side of the health system than to the demand side. As we have argued in previous papers, multiple purchasers of care allow U.S. prices to rise above the level attained in other industrialized countries that either endow the demand side of their health systems with strong, monopsonistic (single-buyer) market power (such as the Canadian provincial health plans) or allow multipayer systems to bargain collectively with the providers of health care, sometimes within government-set overall health care budgets (as, for example, in Germany).
The capacity of health systems. The relatively greater market power on the demand side of health systems in other countries can explain why so many countries allocate a lower fraction of their GDP to health care even though they appear to be more heavily endowed with hospital capacity and health professionals than the United States.
It wasn’t a plagiarize. It was a cut and paste. Did you not see the link to where you could see the whole article/study?
It basically means that we are over inflated and have more parts to the pay out puzzle than needed. It drives up the cost and needs to be steamlined. Like electronic records (admin costs).
We also have higher labor costs. This is why our american production is done over seas. But this can’t be done with your hosptial or doctor.
Then we have private insurance companies that has it’s own objectives and obligations (stock holders). A single payer system has proven to work. It’s just the american government can’t make it work.
What bill are you referring to? There are two of them. There are parts of the bill I like and parts of the bill I despise. Mostly how it is going to be paid for. It stinks.
What I’ve been defending this whole time (if you’ve been paying any attention) is mostly pre-existing conditons and the practice of policy rescinding for ticky tack ailments.
I would like to see A LOT more improvements or even seeing this thing scrapped and started over. But this is what were going to get stuck with.
Like I’ve said before, there is a hell of a better way to improve our over all health system, but our government will never be able to get it right. It’s like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to screw a football.
But you didnt answer my question. If this health care bill is so wonderful, why are the congress people not forced to have it? How can they expect the American people live with something that they themselves aren’t willing to have placed on themselves?
yes, it is a war, and healthcare is a RIGHT. I love it how neocons are so concerned about abortion and the fetus, but when the fetus grows up, they don’t give a rat’s rear end anymore.
I pay MORE THAN ENOUGH TAXES TO HAVE FREE AND TOTAL HEALTHCARE.
Just think of all the money we would have had for healthcare in this country if we hadn’t been waqing scumbag bush’s idiotic war on a country (iraq) that never attacked us.
But its not a right to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for your health care. Don’t I have a right NOT to have to pay YOUR medical bills? The healthcare bill would say no. Whenever there are more taxes, I see it as the feds saying “You don’t know the best way to spend the money you earned. We know how to spend your money better then you.” Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind paying taxes to fund the military for national defense, but when my tax money keeps going to other things I don’t beleive in, thats what i have a problem with. I think the Fed goverment should only be in charge of national defense and national currency (creating of it). All these other laws should be on the state level.
Finally something I can agree with Allan on. This bill(or bills) are a jumbled mess of bribes and promises to special interest groups. They do little or nothing to correct the problems. A do over would be nice, but I’m not convinced that this group in DC could do anything complicated and worthwhile. Both sides seem dishonest. We certainly don’t seem to elect our best and brightest any more. Anyone smart enough to cope with this is smart enough to stay away from the swamp in DC. Sad.
I agree we need reform of the cost of healthcare so we can get reduced rates. As any insurance professional would know that this is a core issue of setting health insurance rates.
You cant increase benefits, increase the cost of providing the benefits and expect the rates to come down. IT IS IMPOSIBLE.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT COST CUTTING NOT BENEFIT ADDING!
Lets flush Harry’s plan down the toilet and start over. Last night I heard he cut another deal, this time with unions to exempt them from the cadilac healthcare tax, I suppose the plan congress gets will be exempt from the cadilac plan tax as well. THIS WHOLE THING IS GARBAGE!
I have a sneaky suspission that this plan being presented is to start a ball rolling that will eventually be an income tax on the wealthy or middleclass that will force them to provide for the healthcare of the poor and lower middleclass. Socialism!
Allan may get his wish eventually. We will be France. Soon after our will to fight our enemies will mirror france as well. Our battle flag will soon be white.
In case you didn’t catch it, Obama has now indicated his urgently needed reforms will not apply to Congress, Labor Unions or State Workers. At least in terms of direct financial increases to their premiums. The remaining Americans, employed in private industry, will pay 40% higher premiums, so that congress, labor unions and state workers can have lower premiums.
As to B and anyone else mentioning George Bush, WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!! We hated Jimmy Carter too, and we loved Ronald Reagan, and it’s IRRELEVANT.
Obama has NEVER been representing “the people of the United States” on this deal, he’s representing welfare recipients, labor unions, government workers and congress. No matter how much you despised any other president, can you not admit, this President is a FAILURE?
Compromise – not the word. “Sellout” or “payoff” to the unions who want a sweatheart deal while the rest of the citizens pay for it!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
Skip the UK and read the rest.
If fraud and waste were addressed, the current health care we have now would be affordable for everyone. And, rein in the attorneys. A family wins the judgment lottery because 80 yr old grandma died from a kidney transplant. Give me a break.
If the majority of us already have health coverage, why is this being forced down our throats? In Nevada, 88% have coverage and 12% do not. What/who is really behind all this? Something’s not right. Someone is pulling Obama’s strings who in turn is pulling Reid’s.
The Bill does nothing to contain costs, which was touted as one of the main reasons we needed it. Rather the Bill suddenly brings several now uninsured people into the fold. It sould be no suprise that additional revenue (some form of a tax) is required to pay for the millions who would become insured.
This is nothing more than income redistribution.
Healthcare is NOT a right. Rights can only be political, never economic. No one has a right to something paid for by someone else.
Healthcare needs to be revised, however this in not a revision, it is a Bill requiring those of us who already pay for their healthcare to contribute to another person’s need. Need does not create a right.
Well said Bob. Too bad DC doesn’t listen to people like you and me.
…not meant to start a war on IJ. Doesn’t everyone that’s insured now currenty subsidize the uninsured? The uninsured may skip preventative care, but when they’re really sick/injured they use the emergency room or Urgent Care. Who pays for those trips?
Correct Bob…health care is NOT a right. There are millions who can afford health insurance either individually or through their employer who chose not to. Some choose to buy boats, TV’s or whatever and not insurance. When these bottom feeders get sick they expect coverage in an emergency room. And now..if passed…one can buy insurance on the way to the hospital since pre-existing condition will not be a constraint. Either way, those of us who pay now will pay more for the bottom feeders. It will be less cost for bottom feeders to pay the fine as opposed to the premium under the proposed new rules.
Income redistribution pure and simple and those entitlement minded bottom feeders will continue to suck the life from those of us who pay. The same idiot who asked me to insure his boat sitting in a marina uninsured with hurricane hugo on the way.
Honest….
We do pay for them. No doubt about it.
Interestingly the complaints are now that our insurance is too high. Tomorrow with socialized medicine, all “Honest” reports show the costs and taxes for insurance will go up, hence the reason they are taxing the cadillac plans.
Uninsured can go to county health, its cheap. There is only 10 % of the population that is supposedly increasing the cost of insurance for 85% of Americans insured. Does not make sense.
Question to you> If we pay for them now, why change the system to pay more for them tomorrow?
Message to Allan: I looked at the site you cited. Very poor attempt at liberal spin.
the problem with your website is this number is converted to US dollars. You forget that in Thialand the average weekly wage is about $120. so $200 am month is not the same as $200 here. I dont think we could get a doctor with 7 years of school and 2 years of internship to work here for $27,000. a year, do you?
This bill should die!
Well, some of them actually pay their own bills. But yes, “uncompensated care” is a factor in overall hospital costs, which in turn are a factor in health insurance premiums.
Yes, we (the taxpayor) currently pay for healthcare and many other benefits that some 1) cannot pay for, and 2) choose not to pay for. It has been this way since the beginning of time. But, if the Fed truly wanted to “fix” the system, it would concentrate on finding ways to get these people documented into the system, to determine and then to spread the cost of their benefits, to mandate that these people pay SOMETHING, and to mandate that they get periodic health screenings as a requirement to receive free or heavily subsidized benefits. Just tie it to their welfare, unemployment check, or Earned Income Tax Credit refund (or something like that) and I guarantee they will comply. Right now, the Feds plan will completely dismantle a system that serves 270 million+ to fund benefits for the 30 million who cannot or choose not to pay for their benefits. You do not destroy a system that meets the needs of 90% of the population, to cover the uninsured/ underinsured 10%! Cover them, yes; but demand and expect some accountability.
I have two points:
1. Can anyone give me an example of a government “insurance” program that has been run well enough to maintain a surplus of funds and not have any unfunded liabilities?
2. Can anyone give me an example of where the Government has not politicized a government program to where what is done is always politically correct and any actuarilly supported data is ignored.
Sarah – that is a valid an good point. But what about the European Nations where the Euro is more expensive than the dollar?
The other thing that someone else posted was about the people not having insurance and buying misc. items like boats and cars etc. True. They would be the bottom feeders. However, there are also employeed persons who had medical through their employee and were laid off. Guess what happend to their coverage? Do you think they can pay their bills plus COBRA while looking for other employment? Then they get sick or have a heart attack.
Guess who pays for that?
I’m not trying to spin anything here. We have a serious problem in this country with the current system. Even David Walker (former GAO Comptroller) and other leading people regarding our national debt agree that we have to reform our healt system if we are going to get out of the fiscal whole we’ve dug ourselves.
Thanks to John and Ratemaker.
To John: I agree that paying more for the uninsured after the bill passes (assuming it does) makes no sense. I just don’t believe I have enough info to say that will be the end result. I know most people are assuming that, but I can’t frame an argument or response around my relatively limited knowledge of this bill.
I recently took a 2-hour trip to the ER for three stitches in my finger. It would have cost me $1500 if I had no insurance. I have no idea how someone making $25-$30k per year would pay for that, no less a major illness or surgery. I’m not implying that this bill is God’s gift to good legislation, so what alternatives are there to eliminating people who essentially get ‘free coverage’ even though they are uninsured? Tort reform would lower premiums, but may not fully address this issue.
Those are some good points and I completely agree. We need much stronger and more fiscally conservative leadership in both houses and in the white house.
Great points, Bill. I agree with you about accountability. There is a huge shortage of that in our country these days.
Ask any person from England if they like the healthcare they are getting?
Sorry Allan but the answer to all this is exposed in the website you cited, just not the way you want it to be. Here it is;
The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to reduce the amount of healthcare you get or reduce the cost of that healthcare. Just like in Canada and Great Brit. The doctors there make about 20,000. Eu. or 50,000 CD. and you can not get an elective surgery for about 18 months if at all. Dont try to get a knee replacement in Canada or England.
Your site you cite, exposes exactly the argument against what you want.
If they were really interested in “helping” the uninsured, we need tort,
drug, malpractice and hospital cost reform. None of this is addressed but then they are all in the pockets of the Dems or vice versa. Where are we getting the money to send to Haiti?
To Honest:
Don’t feel bad if you don’t understand the bill, because of your limited knowledge. You probably have as much knowledge about the bill (maybe more) than the Congress who are supporting the bill and voting along the Democrat Party Line. The limited knowledge we do have about the bill is more than enough to have the bill scrapped and a necessity to start over.Reform needs to happen, but not by allowing Congress to plunge our The United States into chaos and more debt.
Pretty soon we will look like Haiti!
Sarah – 1. I also said skip the UK. Their system is flawed but according to reports, it is getting better. The wait time is a lot less than it was several years ago.
2. You only cite England and Canda. The website I referred to never said anything about Canada. Plus, there are more FREE, industrialized democracies in Europe besides England who have a universal system that it’s citizens pay for. Not the government.
Allan, yes some are getting better, some are getting worse. The main point in all of this is this, IT IS NOT AMERICAN!
Why is our healthcare system the very best in the world?
Why do all of the people in those places come to the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic or any one of our fantastic teaching hospitals?
Why do almost all medical breakthroughs come from the United States?
Why are the most prosperous country in the world?
I know that liberals have a problem with the answer but it is this. BECAUSE OUR SYSTEM IS BETTER THAN THEIRS! MAYBE EVEN WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM!
Allan, you said the following, ” there are more FREE, industrialized democracies in Europe.
Well, here in the US you are not FREE if you are forced to buy a product and fined if you dont. You are not FREE if you have to pay for someone elses salary if they dont want to work. You are not FREE if the Government takes 50% of everything you earn. Those countries you are so fond of are not FREE.
Allan,
Your input on more fiscally conservative representatives in Congress is the wisest of all comments I’ve seen. I would add the WH and honesty. We should not limit our disgust with Congress to their legislation, but also address them weekly/ daily with emails and calls,then ultimately at the polls.
Sarah, have you looked at the other nations as cost to GDP vs. what ours is? We are double that and get less results.
We have the best hospitals and doctors but we do not have the best SYSTEM.
And as our national debt climbs to over 13 trillion, were not looking so prosperous anymore unfortunately.
Sarah – yes that is true regarding a madate to purchase the coverage. It does hamper one’s freedoms and I do not agree with this and have stated it before. However, you have to look at the scoreboard.
I would like to see some other way to pool costs together other than forcing one to purchase something and getting fined if they don’t.
Allan, your whole argument for national healthcare based on GDP is flawed. We import more than any other country in the world, therefore the GDP has very little relevance at all to the quality or cost of our healthcare system.
I as most americans (CNN poll) 57% are opposed to this bill. It does not save any money actually increases the cost (GAO figures) and is full of pay offs to special intrest groups and borderline illegal senate dealings. Ben Lets make a deal Nelson or the Louisianna purchase of Landreau.
THIS BILL SHOULD DIE!
Talk to me again about this when you liberals can put something together without breaking the law and actually reduce the cost of healthcare.
Well then it sounds like we need more than just health care reform.
We still spend more.
Here’s a compromise for you…since the majority of the people do not want (this) healthcare reform, let’s put the billions, if not trillions, of dollars into something the people want and something that is actually FOR the people? What a concept….
Our system probably costs more, because we get more.
See how simple that is?
Remember, four screws in your ankle are cheaper than 2 or none???
If this is such a good bill, as politicians would have us believe, how come they can’t seem to agree on its details? I would think a “good” bill would sail right through Congress. Oh, maybe its because of conflicting ideologies and pandering. Gee, what a great government we have! Never mind what is good for the people.
The better question is, if its such a great bill, why aren’t the congress men and women forced to be placed on this plan if it goes thru? But then again, if need be, they would be able to afford whatever isn’t covered under the bill.
Give me an example then. Show us how why our cost are more than the other FREE, industrialized democracies.
We’ve had PLENTY of bad bad bad bills sail through Congress. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is one of them.
The majority of Americans want healthcare reform, they are just uncomfortable with this bill, as I am.
However, I would like to hear the critics suggest how they would fix health care.
Note that there are TWO problems which need to be fixed: availability and cost (for those who do not believe healthcare is a necessity for everyone, I guess there’s only ONE problem then).
I already cited one specific example of why our costs may be higher:
Four screws inserted into an Open Reduction Internal Fixation (surgical repair of a fracture) are more expensive than two screws, and it’s also more expensive than having NO SURGERY, which you may actually need for proper medical care. You might not get your surgery at all in another country….they may throw you in a cast and hope for the best….. That’s why their costs are lower! They don’t get the care!
AMA guidelines for preventive care largely dictate what is covered under health policies….so, if our medical system deems colonoscopies necessary or advisable for those with family history of colon cancer, there’s a bill for $5000 for a colonoscopy. It’s not free….it costs more money to get better care. Perhaps European doctors don’t consider things “necessary preventive care” like we do…..perhaps that’s because their system doesn’t want to pay for it. This is exactly what had people upset when recently the government indicated that PAP smears are no longer necessary annually….nor are mammograms….
Because when the medical profession doesn’t “recommend” these things, insurance doesn’t usually cover them, and you usually don’t get them…then the insurance company doesn’t have to pay for them…….the only problem with that dreamy analysis is that you may DIE. Which is why Obama’s desired expansion of the National Health Corp to train a bunch of doctor’s doesn’t leave me exicted to be insured by Obama…..Abortions for welfare are in, but my mammo is out….Unless I want to pay for it myself.
Get it now?
I dunno about that. But had you said:
First, the distribution of compensation in the United States is wider than in most of the other industrialized countries. The highly trained and highly talented health professionals employed in health care must be recruited from the same talent pool used by other industries offering high compensation, such as law and finance. Because health care is a labor-intensive industry, labor is one factor driving up the cost of producing health care in the United States.
Second, the highly fragmented organization of the financing of health care in the United States serves to allocate relatively greater market power to the supply side of the health system than to the demand side. As we have argued in previous papers, multiple purchasers of care allow U.S. prices to rise above the level attained in other industrialized countries that either endow the demand side of their health systems with strong, monopsonistic (single-buyer) market power (such as the Canadian provincial health plans) or allow multipayer systems to bargain collectively with the providers of health care, sometimes within government-set overall health care budgets (as, for example, in Germany).
The capacity of health systems. The relatively greater market power on the demand side of health systems in other countries can explain why so many countries allocate a lower fraction of their GDP to health care even though they appear to be more heavily endowed with hospital capacity and health professionals than the United States.
See the rest: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=study+of+international+health+care+spending+levels+&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#R10
I dare you to paraphrase what you just plagiarized. I don’t think you even understand what it means. Over and out.
It wasn’t a plagiarize. It was a cut and paste. Did you not see the link to where you could see the whole article/study?
It basically means that we are over inflated and have more parts to the pay out puzzle than needed. It drives up the cost and needs to be steamlined. Like electronic records (admin costs).
We also have higher labor costs. This is why our american production is done over seas. But this can’t be done with your hosptial or doctor.
Then we have private insurance companies that has it’s own objectives and obligations (stock holders). A single payer system has proven to work. It’s just the american government can’t make it work.
That study was in english ya know.
Oh, another compounding factor is taxes.
What bill are you referring to? There are two of them. There are parts of the bill I like and parts of the bill I despise. Mostly how it is going to be paid for. It stinks.
What I’ve been defending this whole time (if you’ve been paying any attention) is mostly pre-existing conditons and the practice of policy rescinding for ticky tack ailments.
I would like to see A LOT more improvements or even seeing this thing scrapped and started over. But this is what were going to get stuck with.
Like I’ve said before, there is a hell of a better way to improve our over all health system, but our government will never be able to get it right. It’s like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to screw a football.
But you didnt answer my question. If this health care bill is so wonderful, why are the congress people not forced to have it? How can they expect the American people live with something that they themselves aren’t willing to have placed on themselves?
yes, it is a war, and healthcare is a RIGHT. I love it how neocons are so concerned about abortion and the fetus, but when the fetus grows up, they don’t give a rat’s rear end anymore.
I pay MORE THAN ENOUGH TAXES TO HAVE FREE AND TOTAL HEALTHCARE.
Just think of all the money we would have had for healthcare in this country if we hadn’t been waqing scumbag bush’s idiotic war on a country (iraq) that never attacked us.
But its not a right to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for your health care. Don’t I have a right NOT to have to pay YOUR medical bills? The healthcare bill would say no. Whenever there are more taxes, I see it as the feds saying “You don’t know the best way to spend the money you earned. We know how to spend your money better then you.” Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind paying taxes to fund the military for national defense, but when my tax money keeps going to other things I don’t beleive in, thats what i have a problem with. I think the Fed goverment should only be in charge of national defense and national currency (creating of it). All these other laws should be on the state level.
I wish some one any one could give us price on how this bill is going to cost the people who actually work and don’t free load off the state.
Allan, isnt it funny how you are the only one on this blog who is for this bill.
I watched CNN and they said that 36% of the country was for the bill. Did CNN call you a couple of thousand times last night? LOL….
Maybe, Just Maybe you should take another look at this legislation.
Finally something I can agree with Allan on. This bill(or bills) are a jumbled mess of bribes and promises to special interest groups. They do little or nothing to correct the problems. A do over would be nice, but I’m not convinced that this group in DC could do anything complicated and worthwhile. Both sides seem dishonest. We certainly don’t seem to elect our best and brightest any more. Anyone smart enough to cope with this is smart enough to stay away from the swamp in DC. Sad.
I agree we need reform of the cost of healthcare so we can get reduced rates. As any insurance professional would know that this is a core issue of setting health insurance rates.
You cant increase benefits, increase the cost of providing the benefits and expect the rates to come down. IT IS IMPOSIBLE.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT COST CUTTING NOT BENEFIT ADDING!
Lets flush Harry’s plan down the toilet and start over. Last night I heard he cut another deal, this time with unions to exempt them from the cadilac healthcare tax, I suppose the plan congress gets will be exempt from the cadilac plan tax as well. THIS WHOLE THING IS GARBAGE!
I have a sneaky suspission that this plan being presented is to start a ball rolling that will eventually be an income tax on the wealthy or middleclass that will force them to provide for the healthcare of the poor and lower middleclass. Socialism!
Allan may get his wish eventually. We will be France. Soon after our will to fight our enemies will mirror france as well. Our battle flag will soon be white.
Nah, our government couldn’t maintain the French style health system either. That’s pretty sad.
In case you didn’t catch it, Obama has now indicated his urgently needed reforms will not apply to Congress, Labor Unions or State Workers. At least in terms of direct financial increases to their premiums. The remaining Americans, employed in private industry, will pay 40% higher premiums, so that congress, labor unions and state workers can have lower premiums.
As to B and anyone else mentioning George Bush, WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!! We hated Jimmy Carter too, and we loved Ronald Reagan, and it’s IRRELEVANT.
Obama has NEVER been representing “the people of the United States” on this deal, he’s representing welfare recipients, labor unions, government workers and congress. No matter how much you despised any other president, can you not admit, this President is a FAILURE?
Uhhh, okayyyyy!
Brilliant repost Allen. Is this how you believe you win your arguements?
Your right. Here’s my Little John impression:
Uh, Okaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!