Do you want Universal Healthcare?

I fear those are mutually exclusive desires.

They are not mutually exclusive. Do the research.

The gov't can't ,won't and never has spent our money wisely Are they going to magically start now ? No O' and the spenders are running full pork ahead . Health care reform yes but not by the gov't

No, I want affordable healthcare and the government to stay away from it.

So, you want Medicare and Medicaid canceled? They are government healthcare. And if you want it affordable, insurance companies most certianly aren't in the business of charity.

And if you want it affordable, insurance companies most certianly aren't in the business of charity.

Insurance companies don't provide health care, they provide funds to cover it.

So, you want Medicare and Medicaid canceled? They are government healthcare.

Again, I can use my first response by putting the word "Government" in place of "Insurance companies".

The only government provided health care is the VA Hospital system.

MJV... you are so right! And while we're at it we should eliminate all other "governement run" healthcare programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. Just look at all the people that the governement kills with all those programs!

Robert Bartholomew sarcasm is a wonderful tool when used properly, too bad you didn't in your post 1.6.

The Government, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, are not "government run healthcare" they are acting as an insurance company, paying out on claims by the medical facility. Only the VA Hospital system (in which Doctors, Nurses and other staff are employees of the government) can be considered "Government run health care", as I stated in my post 1.5.

The VA Hospital system is in place for a specific purpose, to serve as the medical care of our Armed Forces and Veterans. Nothing more, nothing less.

What has the fact that the government runs the VA for a specific purpose or not got to do with it? It is still a useful and helpful program. It does not “kill” people simply because it is run by the government.

Regardless... the current health plans under discussion have nothing to do with a government "run" healthcare system, anyway. Most proposals are nothing more than what Medicare and Medicaid do today.

What has the fact that the government runs the VA for a specific purpose or not got to do with it?

I was differentiating between what you (and others) were (improperly) calling "government run health care" (medicare and medicaid) and what was actually government run healthcare (VA Hospital System).

It is still a useful and helpful program.

Yes it is, for the purpose it was designed for. Not extremely well run though.

It does not "kill" people simply because it is run by the government.

I don't believe I ever stated (actual or implied) that government run health care "kills" people. Nope, I looked over all of my other posts on this article. Those words (or anything close) were never typed by me.

OK... You opened the entire discussion by saying...

I want affordable healthcare and the government to stay away from it.

One might assume that you meant that you didn't like any of the plans under consideration by the government today, since this is the general topic under discussion.

So... if you aren't opposed to Medicare and Medicaid, what are you referring to as programs that you want "the government to stay away from"?

So.... if the VA is a "useful and helpful program" for what is was designed for, and this is run directly by the government, then that suggests the government is capable of running "useful and helpful" medical programs. So... what are you complaining about again???

Also... I know you didn't use the word "kill" in any of your comments, but this seems to be the implication that many opponents of the current proposals put forth... that because they may in some way be government sponsored, that they will be inefficient and therefore will lead to the death of people.

Finally... if the VA is "not extremely well run", are you suggesting by contrast that all of the other existing non-governmentally sponsored systems are run well?

So... if you aren't opposed to Medicare and Medicaid, what are you referring to as programs that you want "the government to stay away from"?

I don't want to see a single payer health care option. I don't want the government to take over running the hospitals and clinics here in the US. I don't want the government to be my "insurance company" by taking out an inordinant amount of taxes from my payroll check.

that because they may in some way be government sponsored, that they will be inefficient and therefore will lead to the death of people.

Will a government run anything be inefficient, yes without a doubt. Will it lead to the death of people, possibly, but probably not any more then the current system, but also probably not any less.

Finally... if the VA is "not extremely well run", are you suggesting by contrast that all of the other existing non-governmentally sponsored systems are run well?

"Well run", no, "better run", most definately.

One might assume that you meant that you didn't like any of the plans under consideration by the government today, since this is the general topic under discussion

The proposal under consideration by the Senate Finance committee would be considered the least intrusive since another new federal agency is not considered. If the government truly wanted universal health care they could simply pay 29 billion dollars a year and buy the 47 million people who are uninsured coverage, but that would be too simple, CBO estimates, not mine. If they wanted to acheive cost savings from Medicare they could have done that on its own, to bolster Medicare, but the Houlse would rather steal the money from Medicare and fund another federal agency so they can both go broke when they "misread" the costs of the program. As far as taxing the rich to pay for all of this, here is a figure for you: If you take 2006 as a boom year and you taxed all those making over 500,000 100pcts you would only raise 1.3 trillion, and that was a good year. The govt is ramming this through without considering the true costs.

A single payer option is just that... an option. No one has ever said that the government was going to nationalize, or "take over" all of the hospitals and clinics, nor has anyone said that the government will be your insurance company. The proposals are that you will have an “option” to choose, in effect, a government sponsored insurance plan.

As far as costs… The existing health care system is a disaster. It is astronomically expensive as it currently is. The way it’s set up, those that have insurance already pay for those that don’t because hospitals are legally required to treat people with emergency medical conditions, regardless of their ability to pay. This means that people who can’t pay, wait to go to a hospital when their condition is serious, and the costs for treatment are considerably more expensive. And the cost of hospitals doing business doesn’t simply evaporate because a patient can’t pay. Since hospitals need to cover these costs in some way, they simply pass them on to patients with insurance. This is why costs and premiums are so astronomically high.

Additionally, one and a half percent of all Americans file bankruptcy each year due to medical expenses. Since general bankruptcies apply to all liabilities, not just medical bills, the losses absorbed by all businesses, not just hospitals as a result of bankruptcy, amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars each year. These losses are also passed on to all consumers in every conceivable way.

In short, you already pay what is equivalent to the additional cost of a nationalized healthcare system. You just do it by paying higher costs for virtually all consumer products, higher costs for medical care, and a profit motivated insurance company.

If the US provided even clinics where people below the poverty line could at least get basic healthcare, then private insurance companies wouldn’t need to foot the bill for everyone, and could provide coverage for those people who do have private insurance coverage in a much less expensive way.

This concept is no more “Socialism” than the government providing public schools, roads, highways, dams and even the military is Socialism. We all pay, right now for certain types of services that the government provides since it’s impossible and ridiculous for an individual, for example, to pay for a road from their house to their job.

The failure of the existing system is something that affects us all. The remedy is much simpler than those who spin the truth would have you believe. This is in no one’s best interests… except executives of healthcare insurance companies and their largest stockholders.

One might assume that you meant that you didn't like any of the plans under consideration by the government today, since this is the general topic under discussion

No, the (specific) topic under discussion is :

Do you want Universal Healthcare?

To which I answered No. There was no mention of the other plans, either in the title or body of the article.

You know what they say about people who assume ...

This depends on how you define "universal healthcare". Most current plans are for variations of government sponsored insurance... Nothing else. You said you want the government to "stay away from it". Hence the conclusion... you want the government to stay away from government sponsored healthcare insurance plans. You even said specifically that you don't want to even provide people with that option. Your position is pretty clear.

Reference I know, wikipedia is a questionable reference, but it does have some merits.

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards.

The type of "Universal Health Care" that the author is referencing (based on his other comments on other articles) is a socialized medicine system. Not exactly "Universal Health Care" as defined above, but "Universal Health Care" as defined by him (as noted by the keyword links provided in the article [health, healthcare, socialized-medicine, socialized-healthcare, univeral-healthcare] emphasis mine)

Are you making assumptions about what the author intended? You know what they say about assumptions...

I understand what you've already said... I get it!

I don't want to see a single payer health care option. I don't want the government to take over running the hospitals and clinics here in the US. I don't want the government to be my "insurance company" by taking out an inordinant amount of taxes from my payroll check.

Are you making assumptions about what the author intended? You know what they say about assumptions...

No, I'm using typewritten clues based in the words of the author on this article. I am also using clues based on other statements made by this author in previous discussions.

I'm using the definition of "universal healthcare" supplied by the author.

Robert--I like the way you post. You seem to manage to ask questions put forward points without being obnoxious. Thanks.

I respectfully (honestly...respect intended) disagree with you on this topic, and let me tell you why.

First, the VA actually gets high marks from veterans for service and quality. However that's really immaterial unless we are ready to nationalize every doc and hospital in America.

nor has anyone said that the government will be your insurance company.

On the surface, you are correct. However this is like saying we're only going to knock down the first domino in the line.

Supporters of the "strong government plan option" believe this plan will be 20-30% cheaper than private plans, because it will be able to use the Medicare reimbursement rates. This is the whole point of the plan. How long do you suppose private insurers will be able to stay in business against a "competitor" with endless resources and the power to set their own costs?

So after BCBS Texas is forced out of business, where will I be able to get insurance? Answer: at the only remaining source...the US Govt. So this plan will not take away my choice now, but my choice will go away all the same

Now many of us who oppose this particular aspect of health care reform are called all sorts of names by people who support it. They blindly and stupidly assume that anyone who is not on board with their particular militant solution has no interest in solving the problem, is a corporate sheep, or some other such idiocy. Thanks again for not going down that path.

The CBO says we could solve this problem for $30 billion a year using the private sector. I think that's a great idea, and you can raise my middle class taxes to help do it. I also think, that if this debate were more about helping the unisured and less about sticking it to insurance companies, we'd already have a law, be popping corks in celebration, and these people we claim to care about could start getting real help by January, instead of 2014.

Jack... Thank you for your conciliatory words. Although I may give the impression that I am an extreme liberal, I can assure you that I am not. It only appears that way in contrast to those that are so irrational in their opposing positions. In fact, I was a Republican for most of my life, and only until about 5 years ago I voted for a Democratic candidate for President for the first time. I also still believe what Ronald Regan did at the time he was elected was appropriate to unencumber free enterprise to get the economy working properly.

However, it infuriates me that most of the accusations I hear are so blatantly ridiculous! Death panels?! Please! These are an insult to almost anyone’s intelligence. It angers me when people lie so brazenly, either out of ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. It encourages me all the more to represent an opposing position, even if I am not completely convinced of it, simply to provide a more reasonable conversation.

Regardless... I understand your point about competition with the government. I generally agree that the government should not be in the business of providing direct competition to free enterprise. But here’s the problem… and it goes to the whole question of regulation in general

But there is a sweet spot between over-regulating business and “capitalism gone wild”. Unregulated capitalism is as much a disaster as unrestricted government. Both will destroy an economy. We’ve seen the down-side of unrestricted capitalism first-hand in the past 2 years.

We all know, or should know, the existing healthcare system does not work… at least not well. Emergency rooms are legally required to provide care regardless of someone’s ability to pay. All you have to do is sit in an emergency room in any major city for more than a few minutes to see how many people clearly can’t pay. But what is the option? Should we just let people who can’t pay die? Anyone with any conscience knows this isn’t an answer. And hopefully there is a difference between the US and third-world countries.

Since hospitals remain in business regardless of those who can’t pay, the costs are absorbed by those who can, and the costs of services are inflated dramatically to offset losses, which is then absorbed by higher insurance premiums. I know this from personal experience and conversations with a doctor friend of mine. Even most of the people with insurance couldn’t afford to pay for care if they had no insurance. Additionally, about 2% of all Americans file for bankruptcy. 65% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to medical debt. Medical care is probably 50% higher to offset both losses from the uninsured and those who default through bankruptcy.

As medical costs and insurance premiums go higher and higher, the ability for people to pay and corresponding defaults will accelerate. This cycle is never going to improve until it finally reaches a breaking point, or something is done to fix it.

There are a variety of options to solve the problem. I see an insurance option as being the least intrusive. One of the basic premises of Reagan Republicanism is that private industry will always be able to provide services more efficiently than the government. If this is true, then a private insurance provider will always be able to provide better services for a lower cost, right?

The proposals now are to cover nearly 50 million people who have no insurance. This is what the extra money is about, not subsidizing all coverage. As has been said repeatedly, if you want to keep your existing insurance, and the care is better through those companies, then keep it.

Additionally, if those people at the bottom who can’t pay are now able to get care without burdening the existing system then the cost of medical care itself should drop, and the premiums from insurance companies should fall. In short, the big drag on the system will be removed, even if those making above $250,000 a year have to pay 3% in higher taxes.

Just saying “no” is not an answer, and the Republicans have provided no alternative. The reason for this is precisely because if they do, it will be subjected to the same ridicule as the proposals being put forth by the Democrats. Republicans know this. What I resent is that the Republicans are not representing any of our interests. This is about politics and who is in power, and it frankly makes me sick!

Robert--Thanks

But there is a sweet spot between over-regulating business and “capitalism gone wild”. Unregulated capitalism is as much a disaster as unrestricted government. Both will destroy an economy. We’ve seen the down-side of unrestricted capitalism first-hand in the past 2 years.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

The proposals now are to cover nearly 50 million people who have no insurance. This is what the extra money is about, not subsidizing all coverage. As has been said repeatedly, if you want to keep your existing insurance, and the care is better through those companies, then keep it.

Then let's subsidize private insurance. We'll see more competition because more companies will enter that market.

So if I understand you correctly, you are a "health reform yes, public plan no" guy like me?

Jack...

There's something that I've heard mentioned several times, but I can't find it referenced anywhere except as numbers thrown out by opponents of the healthcare bills. I’ve heard the number of $60 billion, and now $30 billion mentioned by you to provide private health insurance for those that are uncovered today. Since the Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid state that the overall average cost for healthcare in America is about $7,500 per person per year, for 50 million people that’s $375 billion per year. I’d like to know how it’s possible for any insurance company to cover 50 million people for $30 billion, or even $60 billion, when it costs $375 billion to provide care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Regarding competition with health insurance providers, the reason that Medicare was established is that medical care could not be provided to senior citizens for a cost anywhere near what the average senior citizen could afford. Non-seniors that don’t have insurance today don’t have it for the same reasons. Universal healthcare was proposed precisely because insurance companies keep cutting services to those that need it the most and/or can afford it the least.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’m sure there are statistics regarding people who lose insurance, and then can’t get coverage on pre-existing conditions. Common examples would be for people who lose their existing job and get another one, or voluntarily move to a “better” job with another company that doesn’t offer insurance through the same provider.

Regarding “rationing” of health care… There have been many accusations made regarding this topic. I haven’t heard any final proposals limiting the amounts, but by focusing on limits within a government-sponsored plan, it draws attention away from what insurance companies do today… as though insurance companies provide endless funds in order to cure, provide therapies or to save lives. Every insurance company provides limits on the amount of coverage they provide. But it’s hard to fathom how a government-sponsored program specifically inspired to address uninsured or under-insured people will be more restrictive than private health insurance coverage in this regard.

The bottom line is that many people who need healthcare the most can’t get it, frequently due to circumstances out of their control. And insurance companies won’t provide coverage on pre-existing conditions, or reasonable amounts to provide coverage where cures may be possible. Government sponsored health care is intended to provide coverage for people that insurance companies themselves can’t or won’t service at costs that most people can afford. This is why a government sponsored program is necessary.

Robert, great question. I confess the $30 billion was a number I had read that did not pan out after I researched it further. I think I only used it once, but then it was too late to go back anc correct the post.

The $60b number is liveable though, for several reasons.

The CMS numbers you refer to include Medicare patients, who are for obvious reasons and through no fault of their own more expensive than the rest of us. CMS estimates that in 2007 public plans spent over $10k/person in claims while private insurance costs were about $3k. This is solely a function of demographics, and those medicare folks will be staying on medicare.

The uninsured population includes 9.7m aliens--not that they don't deserve care, but most countries do not insure foreign nationals.

Another 9.3m uninsured make above $75k. This presumably means they are only uninsured because they have medical conditions, and a simple law changes that for them at no cost to the taxpayer.

So now we're down to about 30m people. We know that demographically this group is young (80% below 45 and 50% below 35) so we would expect their costs to be lower than average.

However, even if we assume the $3k expenses incurred for the broader population, we're at about $90b. So $60b will cover an average subsidy of 2/3 for those families.

Regarding competition with health insurance providers, the reason that Medicare was established is that medical care could not be provided to senior citizens for a cost anywhere near what the average senior citizen could afford. Non-seniors that don’t have insurance today don’t have it for the same reasons. Universal healthcare was proposed precisely because insurance companies keep cutting services to those that need it the most and/or can afford it the least.

You are exactly correct. Seniors are at the time in their life where their medical expenses are highest and they no longer have earned income. However, I would point you to the explosion of Medicare Advantage plan enrollment (growing by 20%/yr) as evidence that private carriers do a better job at this than the US Govt.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’m sure there are statistics regarding people who lose insurance, and then can’t get coverage on pre-existing conditions. Common examples would be for people who lose their existing job and get another one, or voluntarily move to a “better” job with another company that doesn’t offer insurance through the same provider.

Another great point. The people you describe have actually been protected against those scenarios for decades by several key federal laws (COBRA, HIPAA and TEFRA among others), but there are some holes that need filling. For example...what do I do if I still don't have a job when my COBRA runs out, and I have a kid with an uninsurable condition?

Government sponsored health care is intended to provide coverage for people that insurance companies themselves can’t or won’t service at costs that most people can afford. This is why a government sponsored program is necessary.

What you seem to be saying is that you don't care who provides your health insurance as long as they meet certain criteria on cost and benefits, and you don' t see any other way than a govt option to do this.

I bet it would surprise you to find that most of what you want is already part of private insurance.

1. Guarantee Issue--small companies between 2-50 employees as well as Medicare advantage and medicare supplement plans have this.

2. No pre-existing conditions--most HMO's already have this built in.

3. No recission--again Medicare Advantage

4. No limits--HMO's

5. Affordability--a government plan is not going to be any more affordable, it will just be subsidized. I'd rather have subsidized Blue Cross than subsidized Medicaid.

Jack...

Although I agree that seniors will have the highest cost of all demographic groups, I think I could make a case that the uninsured population is not simply an average slice of younger Americans. I would argue that the largest portion of uninsured people come from a group who are historically the lowest socio-economic level in this country, and consequently many are homeless, drug addicted, alcoholic and/or improperly nourished and long-overdue for health care. Costs for providing care to these people would likely be considerably higher than an “average” American.

Regarding COBRA… I can speak 1^st hand about that. About 2 years ago I left a job where I was paying about $250 a month for a family coverage plan. When I left my job, COBRA allowed me to continue the plan I had for up to 18 months for nearly $1,200 a month! Considering I was unemployed and had a son with an impending operation that cost about $50,000 I had no choice but to continue coverage, which ended up costing me about $10,000. I paid the monthly premiums for about 8 months until I could no longer afford to keep it, at which time I and the rest of my family became entirely uninsured.

Regarding HIPAA… the rules for calculating coverage for preexisting conditions under this law are very complicated. There are exclusion periods relating to how long you may have been unemployed prior to obtaining a new job, and when an injury or illness occurs. The law does do not simply provide that you may unconditionally carry your same insurance benefits from one carrier to another. For example, since I was unemployed for nearly a year, I could not obtain coverage equivalent to the plan I previously held. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA

I don’t understand your reference to TEFRA. TEFRA is primarily related to taxation and the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. The only relationship between The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act and healthcare is that TEFRA makes Medicare the secondary payor for certain employees and spouses over age 65.

All this said, I don’t care how coverage is provided to those that are currently uninsured. As long as good care is provided, and insurance companies don’t simply loop-hole a plan to death so that over time low income insurance become useless. But frankly, I don’t trust health insurance companies to not find loop-holes which will eventually maximize their profit by inflating costs and/or minimizing care.

My personal preference is for government run clinics, similar to what a VA hospital provides, but on a much smaller scale, which address very basic minor health issues, such as providing check-ups and providing minor prescriptions and providing basic emergency care for minor injuries… with insurance referrals to hospitals for long-term or serious conditions. But people are so wrapped up in labeling any government plan as being "socialist" or some other derisive term, that they can't simply look at a proposal for what it is, and not what they think it represents.

Robert,

The census bureau tells us this uninsured group is young. As far as homeless or drug addicited, those people are already eligible for Medicaid, but most don't seek care anyway. So I'm not sure how they would actually factor in, but it certainly is a valid consideration.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation with COBRA, and I hope your son came through the operation well. This is a key issue that needs to be resolved. I think we've made a good start with the current program that subsidizes COBRA for those who get laid off.

My personal preference is for government run clinics, similar to what a VA hospital provides, but on a much smaller scale, which address very basic minor health issues, such as providing check-ups and providing minor prescriptions and providing basic emergency care for minor injuries

I think this could be a part of a solution. Many communities have this already, but the clinics are overrun. It's also tough to find docs to work there when private practices can be so much more lucrative. I'm not sure how you overcome those issues, unless maybe you staff them with P.A.'s under the supervision of one doc.

I'd like to interject quickly to thank you both for keeping this debate civil. It's always good to see a civil debate, as opposed to the more common pie-throwing that I'm sure we're all used to :).

Easy to be civil with someone like ol' Robert here.

OMG! Yes! Thank you! A discussion that didn't include stupid accusations without anything to back it up. Perhaps we should be running things. I suspect we might actually get something done. :)

And thanks, Matt, for noticing. Group hug! :)

I would like to see us modify our existing insurance laws to guarantee acceptance, and then issue vouchers like we do for housing and food to those who legitimately cannot afford coverage.

That plus transparency in the charges (knowing how much a doctor visit is up front, or that MRI they want you to take) will go a long way to bringing down the costs of health care and promote true competition.

Using your insurance less, preventative care (checkups) shouldn't be covered by insurance, they are only $35-$60 in most places. It is like an oil change for your car, necessary maintenance, but hardly something you would claim on your insurance. Less low-end costs would also bring the price of insurance down as well.

Subsidizing pharmaceutical research (privately not through the government) will bring down the cost of medicines as well, the only reason they cost so much is they have to cover the R&D costs of their 1 success vs the 1000's of failures. This would also allow generics to come out faster as the above costs would be met sooner.

Where did you get your facts? I went to a doctor last month and the fee just to see her, was almost $200. She did nothing but ask me a few questions and take my BP. $35 or so is the copay on a visit with a doctor - not the whole fee.

We the taxpayers already subsidize pharmaceutical research and development - the tune of 100s of millions of dollars every year. They reap the profits and we the American taxpayer end up getting screwed a second time because the drug companies sell those drugs are reasonable prices overseas, where they have universal health care and the govt caps the prices that drug companies can charge, while we here in the US pay 5 to 10 times more for the same drug that we helped develop in the first place.

If we don't outright hand the drug companies $$ for R&D, out govt gives them huge tax breaks.

Study after study has been done on this subject for the past 60 years or more - all have concluded that the costs of health care delivery would decrease if we had universal health care. We don't need mandatory health ins., we need universal health care.

I'm appalled at the number of people who are falling this old song and dance by the UHC opponents about "socialized medicine" and rationing, etc. I thought Americans were too smart to fall for that again.

I want at least as good health care as what our convicted felons are getting.

would like universal healthcare. However, we have 40 years of evidence to indicate that a government plan will not accomplish that, and will probably do infinitely more harm than good.

Really? Last time I checked...the government run health care in this country was actually doing a great job..with strong support from those who receive it...and strong oversight to catch problems when it doesn't do something right.......

You know...things like...military healcare through the DOD, veterans healthcare, medicare for the elderly.....all run with lower cost and better results than private health care.

Also...look at the vast majority of countries that do have government supplied health care...they spend far less per capita and receive significantly better results with regard to life expectancy, child deaths, and overall population health. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552

Sorry but the facts dont match the fear mongering......

Where did you get your facts? I went to a doctor last month and the fee just to see her, was almost $200.

Off the bill I have sitting right next to me.

GP Pre Surgury - $89
Surgury - ~20k
Surgeon Post surgury - $421

My Copay - $20.

Sorry $35-60 was probably a bit low, more closely would be $90-120 maybe?

I know doctors will deal with you if they know you don't have insurance as well. They aren't all heartless.

How about everyone have health coverage just as good as our elected members of Congress. That would be a major improvement!

You know...things like...military healcare through the DOD, veterans healthcare, medicare for the elderly.....all run with lower cost and better results than private health care.

Also...look at the vast majority of countries that do have government supplied health care...they spend far less per capita and receive significantly better results with regard to life expectancy, child deaths, and overall population health. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552

Sorry but the facts dont match the fear mongering.....

.

I do sincerely hope you are not accusing me of fear mongering and instead are referring to some RWN insisting medicare will kill you if reform is passed.

Fact: Average admin cost per patient, private insurance, 2006: $453. Average admin cost per patient, medicare, 2006: $509. Source..US Census.

And now we get to the root of the disingenuous nature of the "I want a govt health plan" argument. Thanks for opening the door.

Whom do you suppose spends more per patient...Medicare or private insurance carriers. Well Medicare, obviously, any idiot realizes old people spend more in health care. It would, therefore be dishonest to argue that Medicare is less efficient on that basis.

But we stop when the truth becomes inconvenient. Why do you suppose Americans spend more health dollars and have lower life expectancy?

I'm sure our life expectancy has nothing to do with the fact that Americans are TWICE as likely to be morbidly obese as their Canadian/Australian/French/German counterparts. ($150 billion per year solely on obesity...15 times the net profit of the 50 largest health insurers combined)

I'm also sure the cost has nothing at all to do with the fact that US physicians make 75% more than English docs, and 100% more than Australian docs (US DOL, GB Home Office, Australian Employment Office).

But don't let that stop your fantasy. Government health plans are the magic ointment that will regrow hair, make you virile, and clear up acne, all on 2 teaspoons a day.

Our poor people are already saddled with a government health plan that fails to enroll almost a third of those Americans who are eligible.

I for one am not interested in health care reform sired from the long line of ineffective Democratic social reform legislation. It's time to put our pie in the sky ideology aside and do something that works.

. We don't need mandatory health ins., we need universal health care.

???? Methinks you have a contradictory statement, how can you have universal health care, with out the coverage being mandatory. Soon as one person doesnt buy in to the system, you dont have universal, unless of course you are confusing single payer with the term universal. Many countries have universal health care without single payer.

Ask any medicare recipient about the value of a public run system vs a for profit run insurance. It is no contest.

BTW I am a very satisfied mediccare recipient.

Universal Health care!

I didn't have to ask. I helped my mother work through all of her bills during her bout with breast cancer.

Private coverage is 10 times easier.

Ask any medicare recipient about the value of a public run system vs a for profit run insurance. It is no contest.

BTW I am a very satisfied mediccare recipient.

Universal Health care!

And therein lies the problem, in order to fund the public option they are going to take "cost savings" newly discovered in the basement of the Medicare building and transfer it to the new agency. When you here the word cost savings you can be sure it means cuts. The new program has no cost controls other than the transfer of savings from one agency to another. If reform of Medicare was done on its own, i.e. cost savings, there would be a howl of protest from seniors. By tying it to another program they are gutting Medicare under cover.

Please get the numbers right.

Admin costs on private plans not nearly 30%.

Admin costs on private plans run about $450 per person per year. They run just over $500 per person per year for medicare.

May I ask where you got these numbers? Because this doesn't make sense to me. Insurance companies are making huge profits every quarter, steadily increasing for years.

Medicare is plaqued with a huge amount of fraud, so that runs the administrative costs up. I realize private plans have some fraud as well, but not to the extent that Medicare does. Those Medicare forms are cumbersome - I helped both my parents with theirs in the past. There is going to be a certain amount of abuse in any system that is set up to offer service to people - it's human nature and to be expected.

I think we have more than ample evidence that "private" insurance is not working - health care costs have skyrocketed and we have a record number of people with no coverage at all. This is unconscionable in a rich country like this.

May I ask where you got these numbers?

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. www.cms.gov

Insurance companies are making huge profits every quarter, steadily increasing for years.

The most profitable health insurance company in the US is United Healthcare. It's profit margin...the amount of what it takes in that it keeps...is 3.67% Now drug company Merck, by contrast, has a profit margin of 33%. Combined total profits of the 10 largest drug makers....$56 billion. Combined total profits of 10 largest health insurers....$8 billion. Source..Google Finance, but can be found on any investment website.

I think we have more than ample evidence that "private" insurance is not working

No we don't. The overwhelming majority of Americans like their current plans. (JD Power)

health care costs have skyrocketed

Which none of the proposed government plans will fix..source...Doug Elmendorf, CBO

and we have a record number of people with no coverage at all. This is unconscionable in a rich country like this.

I could not agree more. I'm 43. My family is covered by private insurance for less than $1500/yr per person. I can go in or out of network to any provider in America. I had ACL reconstruction last year. My doc was the Chief Medical Officer of the US Olympic Committee (he just happens to practice in Dallas). I paid less than $3000 out of pocket, including deductible and everything.

We could buy private insurance on every uninsured person in America for less than any of the proposals currently on the table. We'd then have real equality of care.

So when Pelosi et al decide to take their eye off the ball for the sake of their private war on the insurance industry, I get unhappy.

Just remember, "health care reform" and "government health plan" are not synonymous terms.

Actually, I agree with you on pretyt much every point, except this one :

...and president would have the exact same coverage they are dumping on us, with no exceptions for them ...

No matter what you think of the President and his policies, he should have better health care then the rest, remember, Biden and Pelosi are right behind him, and as bad as President Obama, may be, "President Biden" would be bad, even worse would be "President Pelosi" *shudder*.

It isn't convoluted or anything

Yes it is.

It's really vague, though, and that's what worries me. Way too many questions impacting way too many people and no answers.

Matt--I think you are right on almost all counts. The format is difficult if you're not used to it, which as you say, most people aren't.

Oh, and certainly no offense on birthers and deathers and other idiots. I remember the day Pat Buchanan got in a strump and "left" the Republican party. The remaining Republicans shouted for joy...one less nutcase making them look bad.

I am still worried about wording and details in this bill, because they really mean a lot. For example, regulations on this proposed public plan. What happens if it goes broke? To whom do I complain when they don't pay my claims? How can you assure me it isn't going to undercut and eliminate all other competition? Who is going to explain it to me and then to my employees? I have an agent now, who does a great job. He's the one person who has always told me the truth about our healthcare. I asked him how all this impacts him and he says he has no idea...he says agents are not even mentioned. He says there are about half a million health agents nationwide...and we forgot to mention them???

The problem with "progressively chartering implementation" is that it leaves much of the actual legislation in the hands of people who nobody voted for and we don't have a chance to remove. I don't want a situation where some government employee is making up laws by the seat of his pants.