You Have No Idea What Health Costs

It was pretty good at getting across the point that much of what we pay is hidden - but without quite nailing that the working taxpayer pays it all.

As I read this, it looks like the only real difference in the movement of money (insurances) is the inclusion of government into the 54% it does not already handle. I am not at all comfortable with that thought, considering what they've done with Social Security and MediCare - both of which were supposed to be "locked box" affairs, but have been government-managed right into the toilet.

Also, if MediCare cuts will be part of the salvation of this "reform" (that is part of the intent), why not simply DO IT? The reform package isn't required. Since government is already handling 46% of the heath-care dollars spent, this would make quite an impact without all the rest of it.

At least the soon-to-be-higher costs won't be so well hidden. Imagine the transparency if government was able to handle the entire thing.

There is an absolutely great article in Newsweek ("No Country for Sick Men") discussing health care options around the world (1) and why we as a country are so resistant to covering everyone.

(1) http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22no+country+for+sick+men%22&d=76713452570705&mkt=en-US&w=fcc5853,925831dc

Indeed an excellent article, Spectator99

The last paragraph sums up the article and our current health care rationing system.

In the US, some people have access to just about everything doctors and hospitals can provide. But others can't even get in the door. That amounts to rationing care by wealth. This seems natural to Americans; to the rest of the developed world, it looks immoral.

It looks immoral to me as well.

That amounts to rationing care by wealth. This seems natural to Americans; to the rest of the developed world, it looks immoral.

The rest of the world is not that good at lecturing us on morality. Is it more moral to take money from some people to pay other's health care costs than to teach people that they have a responsibility to educate themselves to the point to where they can buy their own?

Excuse me?

Do you honestly believe America holds the monopoly on morality?

Man, you're full of it, and it ain't good.

Do you believe it's moral for the 'richest country on the planet' to allow over 45,000 Americans to die each year because they lack access to health care?

Lack of Insurance to Blame for Almost 45,000 Deaths: Study

Do you believe it's moral for the 'richest country on the planet' to allow over 45,000 Americans to die each year because they lack access to health care?

1. We are not the richest country

Lets get that myth behind us right now. We have been pissing away wealth for four decades trying to solve insoluable social problems. Why do I have to pay because someone has not taken care of themselves enough to be able to get healthcare? Don't play the sick card as the truly sick and indigent need and should get help, but that is only a fraction of the people involved.

Your link is not universally supported either. From your article:

"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," NCPA President John C. Goodman said. "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."

Bad methodology does not equal a good report.

Why do you have to pay for the interstate highway system? Or, why do you have to pay because someone's kid was playing with matches and the fire dept had to keep their house from burning down? Why do you have to pay for police to cruise around keeping your safe at night?

You don't get that you're already paying for people that don't take care of themselves or can't afford insurance? They show up at emergency rooms and don't pay the bill. Who do you think pays for that?

So, what do you think the real number is? 20,000? 10,000? Would those number ease your conscience? Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

Why do you have to pay for the interstate highway system?

The interstate highway system is part of "internal improvements" role of government that has been in place since before Rome. By far most of the Interstate highway system is paid for by the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and not by the entire citizenry.

I pay for fire and police because I pay taxes, it is for the commons. However, the magnitude of taxes required to pay for everyone else's healthcare is simply something that is beyond the bounds, it is a matter for each of us as citizens to take care of yourself.

How old are you space guy? I think i will quit paying my social security taxes to pay for part of your retirement. i dont owe you anything and i m not going to support you. sorry.

How old are you space guy? I think i will quit paying my social security taxes to pay for part of your retirement. i dont owe you anything and i m not going to support you. sorry.

You are not anyway. Social Security is another Ponzi scheme dreamed up by the government. When it was started there were 63 people for every beneficiary. Today it is closer to 2 to 1. I am saving up for my own retirement thank you very much, as every responsible citizen should. Anyone that thinks that Social Security will take care of all of your financial needs is an idiot.

I didnt say it was paying for all of your financial needs, and who are you calling an idiot? very rude, ah well, considering the source.

so, every responsible citizen just paid for aig as well, unprecedented bailouts, what is my share for this? do we get like 1 percent or is it a hard to conjure up sum. (SARCASM)

also, i am paying for the auto industries' success, dont feel like that either. hmmm. i dont agree with all of pres obamas actions, (the bailouts no 1) it seems he is taking a cue from embarrassing berlusconi on how to regulate industries that are flopping (interesting gov loan for alitalia) but i would like affordable health care that doesnt exclude me from a preexisting conditon. i guess that would be too difficult, the ins companies wouldnt be able to play god.

and who are you calling an idiot?

I did not call you an idiot. I said that anyone that thinks that Social Security will take care of all of your financial needs was an idiot.

You have to be responsible for your own life.

I did not call you an idiot. I said that anyone that thinks that Social Security will take care of all of your financial needs was an idiot.

You have to be responsible for your own life.

way to respond to the entire comment. just the emotional part of it.

The rest of the comment was just an emotional rant that built from your first part. When you are willing to actually discuss the issues rather than continue with inapplicable side issues, then we can discuss.

space guy

Bad methodology does not equal a good report.

So, you pick one partisan Dr. to supposedly debunk the study. Show me the evidence rather than his opinion.

You say we can't afford to cover everyone. Can you tell me why we pay more than 1.5 times as much as any other country on the planet for our health care and yet get fare less in our health outcomes? Where is all that money going?

You say we can't afford to cover everyone. Can you tell me why we pay more than 1.5 times as much as any other country on the planet for our health care and yet get fare less in our health outcomes? Where is all that money going?

We are paying more because of government regulation already in place, not in spite of it.

We are paying more because of government regulation already in place, not in spite of it.

Your argument still doesn't explain why we're paying more than other countries and getting less. Do you believe all those other countries have less regulation?

Do you have any evidence to support your argument?

Your argument still doesn't explain why we're paying more than other countries and getting less. Do you believe all those other countries have less regulation?

Those countries are not structured like the USA with the patchwork quilt of state and national jurisdictions. Lawsuits are also very much discouraged over there in comparison to here.

Do you have any evidence to support your argument?

Look at what happened when car insurance was opened up to greater competition. My rates have gone down over 50%.

The rest of the comment was just an emotional rant that built from your first part. When you are willing to actually discuss the issues rather than continue with inapplicable side issues, then we can discuss.

inapplicable side issues? hardly. The AIG bailout was unprecedented. A private insurance company being bailed out by the government with taxpayer money. What is the difference? I would rather pay a little higher taxes to ensure all Americans have a fair shot at health care insurance, than have my paycheck line the pockets of overpaid stuffed suits who only know how to compensate themselves.

paragraph 2 is especially effective and true.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/economic-recovery/er-b-20090312.html

Space guy's arguments would be true and applicable if our government wasn't already giving large advantages to large companies.

In a truly market economy, competition would weed out the poorly performing companies, but it's been a long time since we had a real market economy. MegaCorp and ACME Inc have bought our election process, and our Congressional representatives are wholly owned subsidiaries.

The fact is that our health care "system" sucks and it's time to pound them into submission.

space guy,

So, basically, you just believe insurance rates will go down.

Debunking a myth: an epidemic of medical malpractice, not of malpractice lawsuits

Tort reform is a red herring.

CuriousG, exactly so. A Harvard study showed that only one out of every 7.6 people that was harmed by malpractice actually filed any sort of claim. 76% of claims are rejected.

The average cost for malpractice insurance is 5% of a doctor's gross income. When I was a contractor, my liability premiums had gone to about 18% of my gross income, so I quit and went back into property management.

This bunk about tort reform is just another way for insurance companies to avoid paying out on claims. Anybody who believes that they'd pass along any savings in reduced premiums is delusional.

I agree that the Baukus plan is weak but I think you have to be pragmatic about this whole thing and get what you can. Even the Baukus plan is a huge improvement from what we have now and this program will take time to be fully implemented. Personally I'd rather see a Public Option so that we can increase competition and choice. Yes I believe in free choice. My great hope is that the smart and tough team of Obama/Axelrod/Immanuel won't let this opportunity for truly historic legislation pass. These guys know how to deliver and they are often underestimated. Time will tell.

It may take five or more years for people to understand what is at stake. Employers pay 73% of the cost of health insurance and as the costs go up, more will get out of it all together or offload costs to their employers. See #1.3

Change will come, it is a matter of time. I hope it is this year but many in Congress appear willing to forget the desires of Americans to please their health care patrons. Baucus received $3.6 million in campaign contributions (legal bribes). But the day is coming and I think soon when they will no longer be able to avoid it. I heard a story that Max was initially backed by a rich family and asked someone in Congress whether he should run as a Democrat or Republican. Very telling isn't it?

It may take five or more years for people to understand what is at stake. Employers pay 73% of the cost of health insurance and as the costs go up, more will get out of it all together or offload costs to their employers. See #1.3

This is exactly the reason why the Obama plan will help lead to national bankruptcy. Employers will offload their healthcare to the government, which will drive the costs through the roof, and China is not going to continue buying the debt.

Do you think the public option will be free?

If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Americans pay more than any other country on the planet for our health care and get far worse outcomes. Why?

The public option would be paid for by premiums just like private insurance and would not be subsidized by the government. At least, as it is currently designed.

space guy

Lets see if I understand what you are saying. You don't want change now and you don't want change later as things get increasingly worse. But at the incredibly fast growing rate of health care cost and the flat salary rate, who do you expect to pay for health care in the US? The employers who will not, the government which can't afford to and the employees who also can't afford to.

Employers will offload their healthcare to the government, which will drive the costs through the roof,

Employers opting to the public option is not "offlloading" healthcare it to the government because if they chose to go with the public option, the Employer would be paying that 73% to the government, how does that lead to bankruptcy? How does that drive cost up?

Say an employer does chose a public option because it was cost effective, is that not capitalism?

The public option would be paid for by premiums just like private insurance and would not be subsidized by the government. At least, as it is currently designed.

Then why does the president say that $500 billion of the cost will be covered by the "savings" of medicare?

Sorry but this does not compute.

Say an employer does chose a public option because it was cost effective, is that not capitalism?

You can't have it both ways. Either the employer off loads or the employer pays. If the employer has to pay, then there are no savings, then as a business owner I would not have anything to do with the public option. However, what is going to happen is that taxes will go up, the deficit will go through the roof even more than now, and then I will not be able to borrow money because, just like in the 70's interest rates will be as high as 20%.

As far as change goes, two things, allow insurance companies to sell policies across the country. Cap lawsuits is the second thing. This will bring costs down far faster than anything else in the world.

Then why does the president say that $500 billion of the cost will be covered by the "savings" of medicare?

Because creating the system will cost money. And there will also be a cost associated with the supplementing of premiums the government plans to do. That part is true of GOP and Dem plans. But my point is that since the government plans to charge premiums on the public option/co-op (which ever way they go), past a certain point that part of it should pay for itself or be offset by the premiums collected.

Either the employer off loads or the employer pays. If the employer has to pay, then there are no savings, then as a business owner I would not have anything to do with the public option.

I am not following you. Employers already pay portions of health premiums. If a public option becomes available and is cheaper the only reason they would switch to it would be if it was saving them money. I am not understanding what you mean by "offloading" cost. The GOP plan wants to take away the tax incentive for employers to provide healthcare and then off subsidies to the families, if anything that is "offloading" cost from the private sector to the public and the individual. Especially if it is done the way Mccain was proposing during the 08 election because the offered subsidies didnt match what the employers were contributing leaving the individual to pay the difference.

Anyway, the point that gets left out, and why I mention it is captialism, is there is no mandate that employers chose a public option for their company--only the free market prinicple of choice.

If the plan is far inferior to private plans than employers wouldnt but it. They want to look attractive to top talent therefore there would be no incentive to switch. However if the plan is comprable and cheaper they would have incentive to switch. Capitalism at work.

allow insurance companies to sell policies across the country

OK, but why doesnt intra-state competition do anything to lower costs now? Wont that just make big companies bigger without forcing them to do anything about the product?

Cap lawsuits is the second thing.

As a doctor I am all for that 100%,(hopefully would make my malpractice cheaper), but I think it is niave to think simple tort reform will stop defensive medicine practices that have been ingrained into medical practice for the last 3 decades. Yes some doctors order test because they are scared of getting sued, but more do so because that is what they are trained to do. The standards of practice are built around that and will take some ammending before any real benefit is seen from tort reform.

Because creating the system will cost money.

Then why don't they implement this part first. if it proves to work, then they will have credibility for the rest of the plan.

why don't they implement this part first.

Whether they get all the reform measures or not they have to fix the waste in medicare,a given; but saving money in medicare would do little to improve the problem by itself. Why do it piece meal?

Whether they get all the reform measures or not they have to fix the waste in medicare,a given; but saving money in medicare would do little to improve the problem by itself. Why do it piece meal?

It's called credibility building. tens of millions of people think that the congress and Obama are lying through their teeth on this issue and that their claims of savings are laughable. If they want to dispel these issues, then let them deal with that part first. If it works out, then the republicans will be embarrassed, the tea parties will evaporate, and the democrats will rule the government for the next few decades.

The fact is that they are lying through their teeth and don't dare try and implement these so called savings without screwing everything else up so bad that it will be unfixable.

Well, like I said in the thread earlier, there are no tangible numbers to the saving touted in tort reform either. but its still a good idea.

The waste in Medicare is well documented so the assertion that it could be reduced is plausable. I am concerned that those "savings" could be reductions in the services provided that part I am leary about, but i reserve judgment for the details when they come out.

Here are some numbers for you to try and discredit, space guy, with references.

Reduce Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Health Care

A nice report. However, at 3%, which is a very low number can be completely eliminated.

If you completely eliminated the government from healthcare you would save a lot more than that.

Did you notice Curious G's article shows where they have found savings in the sytem before?

Since its inception in 1997, the national Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program has returned more than $11 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund.

WHy is it unreasonable that more efforts in this area wouldnt produce the more of the same results

Also you ducked two questions in my ealier post

OK, but why doesnt intra-state competition do anything to lower costs now? Wont that just make big companies bigger without forcing them to do anything about the product?

I think it is niave to think simple tort reform will stop defensive medicine practices that have been ingrained into medical practice

wow $11 billion over ten years vs $68 billion per year. This gives zero confidence in their ability to do more.

If you completely eliminated the government from healthcare you would save a lot more than that.

How?

If you completely eliminated the government from healthcare you would save a lot more than that.

How?

At the very least, you eliminate the overhead added by getting government (additional bureaucracy) involved. The original money flow did not include such bureaucracy and today, we need quite a bit of that overhead; to be responsible for 46% of the total healthcare dollars.

This gives zero confidence in their ability to do more.

Ok but that gives me hope that with more funding and authority they could do more. Agree to disagree there, but that doesnt make the claim that reigning in waste saves money implausable.

and still you duck the questions

1. Why hasnt existing intra state comeptition lowered premium prices?

2. How will tort reform gaurentee curbing defensive medicine practices?

At the very least, you eliminate the overhead added by getting government (additional bureaucracy) involved.

which runs about 2-4% vs the private insurance companies who have P&O in the 13-20% range.

I'll take 2-4 over 13-20 any day.

Aleuicius,

As pointed out by 4real? and SonOfLliberty2008, your assumptions and numbers just don't add up.

Try again.

The investments are there, the results are missing.

That's what happens when short term thinking rules over long term thinking, and when you let accountants start running things.

BTW, I think we have the best health care in the world.

Then why are we ranked #37 in the world regarding health care?

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries

Wha'ts wrong with being ranked 37 out of 191? That puts you in the top 20%.

What's wrong with it is we're paying 1.5 times more than anyone else and we're still not even in the top 10.

We definitely have the best health care system in the world..................if you work in the business. The rest of us are getting hosed.

The problem is that the health care industry has priced itself beyond the reach of too many people. As long as you think that it is OK for 18k people a year to die prematurely and for 10's of millions of people to go without health care, I guess your logic is perfectly reasonable but it is certainly not moral. We are the only advanced country in the world like this and supposedly we are the richest country in the world. Makes one proud to be American, doesn't it? The well to do and the absolutely poor get care and the rest get nothing. The "me" generation in action. What a bunch of spoiled asses!

As long as you think that it is OK for 18k people a year to die prematurely and for 10's of millions of people to go without health care, I guess your logic is perfectly reasonable but it is certainly not moral.

It is moral for the people that need healthcare to gain an education and skills in the marketplace in order for them to pay for it themselves. What you are proposing is at best a temporary solution that will end up killing insurance for everyone when national bankruptcy occurs.

So, you'd require anyone not able to afford insurance to enroll in their local community college first?

Why is it, that all those other countries haven't gone bankrupt yet? Oh, and you can't include their problems due to our almost destroying the world economy.

space guy

It is moral for the people that need healthcare to gain an education and skills in the marketplace in order for them to pay for it themselves.

How many qualified, educated people are out of work now? How many low wage workers can afford to get a higher education and what fields do you propose are safe from off shoring or the importation of low wage workers now? As long as our country is in a race to the bottom, more and more people will be caught in a trap. The problem lies at the feet of Wall Street greed. In their never ending search for higher quarterly profits, they are the ones driving up the cost of health care and they are the ones constantly shifting jobs over seas and looking for ways to cut labor costs here. We can not continue to run this country like this and everyone knows it. Wall Street has to be reigned in for the good of our country.

As long as our country is in a race to the bottom, more and more people will be caught in a trap.

Why is our country in a race to the bottom? We turned our back on the future because we did not want to spend the money on that, we wanted to solve our social problems first. Well this is what that attitude has gotten us. You just want to add more to the mix and hope that things will turn out for the better?

Creating wealth is our problem today, and neither the current congress or the president have a clue about how to do that.

Lets see. We spend 20% of the US income on the military and related matters. That isn't enough? Our one country represents 41.5% of the total world military spending (1). The conservatives carp at funding US green energy projects but China is so far ahead of us it is laughable.

Creating wealth is our problem today

There is plenty of wealth in the US. Its in a precious few peoples hands. This is nothing but sheer greed and the GOP is the party of greed.

(1) http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending

Lets see. We spend 20% of the US income on the military and related matters. That isn't enough? Our one country represents 41.5% of the total world military spending (1). The conservatives carp at funding US green energy projects but China is so far ahead of us it is laughable.

It used to be 50% and was for decades. We spend 20% of taxes on the military, not our national income, which is about $13 trillion dollars per year. I am all for green projects, but neither of these things are what the discussion is about.

A few years ago, I saw a story on the news about a guy in Portland OR who needed a new heart valve. He had no insurance, so got estimates of cost. The estimate was $400,000, and was almost surely a low estimate.

He went to India and had it done. The total cost, including air fare and hotel bills was $10,000.

I fail to see how our health care industry is worth more than 40 times as much, can any of you who say we have the best health care in the world explain that?

That includes regular doctor and dental exams which is where insurance comes in. These often are $60 to $100 each. Even if your perfect, you still need insurance just in case of an accident. But you're right, preventative medicine is always better. It's cheaper too.

Except that preventative medicine has been found to be expensive. Ask the GBO.

Really - this "reform" (masquerading as re-distribution) - sounds fine, on the surface; but health-care for myself and family over the past thiry years was expensive enough! I am glad something like this didn't happen back then: paying 30-40% more for insurance would have meant less house, less land, keeping autos longer than my normal 8-10 years, smaller autos (I need a truck for the way I live, but can't afford two vehicles), and some of those years were skirting bankruptcy by less than a whisker - in short, it seems there would have been less "life" (at least in hindsight) with the likelihood of having gone bankrupt at least once. If there were ANY additional cost to healthcare, I'm pretty sure the family would have had fewer doctor visits.

Aleuicius,

Any ideas you can offer as to why we pay more than 1.5 times as much as any other country for our health care and can't even get our outcome numbers in the top 10 of anything.

Curious; none that aren't almost strictly "capitalist" with some judicial and government reform. They have all been presented - by myself and others (in varying form) - but generally dismissed out-of-hand.

It is the obsessive; almost rabid; dismissal of anything remotely capitalist as a possible solution that prevents me from repeating them here and causing me to state that 'this must run it's course'.

I can only endeavor to live as free as I possibly can and minimize "playing" in this socio-facist game. If I must partake; because there is no other option available; I will do so and get out from under it as soon as possible.

I would rather not - but there is no longer an "America" to go to.

I still fail to understand how capitalism could allow us to pay so much more than other countries for inferior outcomes?

Either I don't really understand capitalism, or what we have isn't truly capitalism.

inferior outcomes?

This is opinionated garbage and can be refuted. It is arguable that if someone in the US had enough money they could get the best medical service in the world. That is capitalism. Understand that I may be able to sell a baseball collector card for 1,000 dollars simply based on supply and demand even though the cards actual value is really just that of the materials used to make it. So what are things worth in a capitalistic society? Whatever the intrinsic value of the "market" is. The market can range from one person to the whole country.

So what happens when everyone has a share in the market? Things become worthless.

gundy_75,

The baseball card's 'value' is whatever you can get someone to pay you for it. Period.

As a country, America isn't even in the top 10 of any of the major measures of health outcomes among all industrialized countries on the planet.

An individual can indeed get the most expensive care in the world here, but that does not equate with 'best'.

Refute away...if you can.

When everyone has a share in the 'health care market', there'll be less suffering and death due to inadequate access to health care.

I think that is hardly worthless.

Unless you go to the countries where I come from, Germany, and Russia.

In our country you don't get one without the other.

yes we need both. We need to what a procedure costs and how much will be covered and even if a cheaper alternative exists. Do we really need all those tests? I don't totally agree with tort reform though. You need to be able to sue if the doctor screwed up due to negligence rather than accident. But suing for anything is excessive.

The free market will take care of it. Right?

If the market was allowed to operate, it would.

How is it not allowed to operate?

How is it not allowed to operate?

Lets see, just this week the courts by fiat required a company's insurance to pay for the gastric bypass surgery of a guy that had knee problems because he was too fat to be able to stand.

In my state (which Obama mentioned in his speech), when lawsuits were allowed to spin out of control all the insurance companies that were there, left, except for Blue Cross, which now has a monopoly on insurance and helps to keep it that way. If we had insurance allowed (the government controls this) that we could buy from anywhere, then risk could be spread and costs would decline.

You keep dreaming that the insurance companies are the answer.

You keep dreaming that the insurance companies are the answer.

Well the system that currently has $74 trillion in unfunded liabilities (medicare) certainly is not!

And what happens when you find out that no matter how careful you are about your finances and personal health, you're still hit with a catastrophic illness? What happens if you're a supermarket clerk, window washer, or ocean fisherman who's doing honest work but can't earn enough to pay for private insurance? If you're diagnosed with cancer do you just walk down to the river and jump in?

There are reasons that even though we're supposedly a capitalist country we have a "socialist" postal service that everyone can use for the same 44¢, "communist" fire and police departments that protect everyone regardless of their ability to pay, and interstate highways built by card-carrying Marxists. It's because these services help all of society whether or not everyone uses them equally!!

It's time for the extreme right to get out of its self-constructed time warp. The frontier closed 120 years ago. No matter how much the protesters dream that it could be otherwise, 99.999% of us can't build a cabin in the woods and be totally self-sufficient.

And what happens when you find out that no matter how careful you are about your finances and personal health, you're still hit with a catastrophic illness? What happens if you're a supermarket clerk, window washer, or ocean fisherman who's doing honest work but can't earn enough to pay for private insurance? If you're diagnosed with cancer do you just walk down to the river and jump in?

You should ask yourself what is going to happen to these people when we have national bankruptcy.

I support a single payer system. I support a public option, I support getting rid of health insurance altogether. I support coops. I support national health insurance exchanges. I support paying doctors for performance not for quantity. I support tort reform. I support getting government completely out of health care. I support getting employers completely out of health care. I support a health insurance madate. I support abolishing Medicare. I support expanding Medicare. The thing I object to most is the status quo. The overwhelming evidence is clear that the statu quo is failing us miserably. We are driving off a cliff because we are afraid to turn onto a different path.

We are driving off a cliff because we are afraid to turn onto a different path.

We are driving off the cliff because we have people who want the government to pay for what they are responsible for doing for themselves.

And what happens when you find out that no matter how careful you are about your finances and personal health, you're still hit with a catastrophic illness? What happens if you're a supermarket clerk, window washer, or ocean fisherman who's doing honest work but can't earn enough to pay for private insurance? If you're diagnosed with cancer do you just walk down to the river and jump in?

It's an option - albeit a poor enough choice.

What happens when your house and belongings are destroyed in fire (earthquake, tornado, flood) and you didn't make enough to have insurance - or the insurance you could afford wasn't enough - or you never updated to include the growth in materials and equity?

What happens when you get in a car wreck and the claims go far higher than what was on the policy you could afford?

What happens is - you get "bit". What is being clamored for is security against this - even though it is a relatively minor occurrence - from the perspective of the population-at-large. 89% are satisfied with health care, so they aren't the ones that got bit, leaving those that have, as a portion of the remaining 11%. Of course, from the perspective of the victim/loser/unfortunate, it is not in any way minor.

Security is a wonderful thing; you are wrapped in a pretective cocoon against much harm and danger. The downside is that you are not able to freely move about as you once were.

Wage security comes via union contract, so even the mediocre employee will get paid on a par with their contemporaries. Then again, you can be exceptional at what you do, but cannot exceed that contractural limit on wages, so you will be paid the same as the worst of your contemporaries. To break beyond that limit requires leaving the "security" of the union and making a personal contract with your employer - and taking the risk upon yourself. Like any investment, the greater the risk, the greater the reward - and the greater the impact of failure.

The same sort of rules apply with other aspects of life - like insurance. The larger your cocoon, the more of yourself (particularly money) that gets bound up in it - no longer available for other use. Less cocoon (less spent) frees up more money for other things, but risks greater loss when the odds turn against you.

If you want freedom, there are risks - more prevalent and personal - in everyday life, than mere tyranny. You can choose the equivalent of being wrapped in a blanket and spoon-fed, or take the responsibility of accepting the risks of a freer life.

There really isn't an "all-of-the-above" answer to this one.

PCH

Who will ever want to go into medicine again?

People who want to heal people instead of getting wealthy.

The doctors are not quitting because of money, they said they simply could not tolerate a government employee telling them what they can or cannot do for their patients.

BS. The health insurance companies regulate care now and the conservatives know it.

As someone who lived in England for 2 1/2 years, you never want to get sick there and never want to end up in one of their dumpy hospitals!

The spoiled in this country expect Hilton Care and I am tired of paying for it. It is people like me who pay 100% of the rate so that the rich get subsidized care off my dollars. You call their hospitals dumpy. Everyone in their country gets health care not just the rich. When you are sick, you are there to get well. It is too damn bad if you don't have modern private rooms with a minibar, a couch and a nurse in a miniskirt. I am tired of paying for the ego trips of the wealthy.

People who want to heal people instead of getting wealthy.

Yea right, people who have to go to school for seven years, then work as an intern for 15 hour days for another three years, really after all that, want to work for minimum wage as long as they get to "heal people".

space guy

want to work for minimum wage as long as they get to "heal people".

That answer is nothing but empty rhetoric. Who said anything about minimum wage. Just absurd.

Yeah right. My brother and his wife are both family practice physicians and teach at a prominent university, and both strongly support a single payer system. He has served on the FDA drug board and as the president of his state family practice association. But, then what does he know?

That answer is nothing but empty rhetoric. Who said anything about minimum wage. Just absurd.

Well how much do you think that ten years worth of education/training plus making life or death decisions on a daily basis with the threat of being sued into the poor house if you make a wrong one is worth?

Would YOU put yourself into a position where some government functionary determines what you can and can't do - with YOU still being held responsible for the outcome?

Not if you could help it.

So simple it is effortless...

Who will ever want to go into medicine again?

People who want to heal people instead of getting wealthy.

So you acknowledge we are going to have a definite decrease in industry workers (i.e. doctors) while having an increase in customers (i.e. patients)? And this is going to happen to an already flowing over the brim industry...so what does it equal? A more inefficient system (i.e. worse care, longer lines, etc.)

I spelled it out for you; if it isn't clear then I can't help you.

Would YOU put yourself into a position where some government functionary determines what you can and can't do - with YOU still being held responsible for the outcome?

I absolutely would do that before I put some insurance company, who's profit depends on denying claims for care.

I absolutely would do that before I put some insurance company, who's profit depends on denying claims for care.

Another fallacy. Insurance companies never make money from premiums. They make money on the investments that they make, derived from the premiums and those profits underwrite the insurance that is paid out.

One structural thing that should be fixed is how billing is done in medicine. You could save a hell of a lot more than 3% if you simply fixed the computers that do the billing and the data input system.

On the billing issue, we're in complete agreement.

As for premiums, then we can reduce them, because that's not where insurance companies make their money? Then we can also require them to pay claims?

I don't begrudge them making money, I begrudge them not paying valid claims. If this isn't a major issue, why don't they just pay the claims?

Because they wouldn't make as much money!

I begrudge them not paying valid claims.

In this I am in agreement. A lot of this could be automated, which would eliminate the claims problems and lower costs to the point that the fighting that goes on over the claims (which is very expenisve), would be eliminated.

See we can work toward a common interest here!.

We need standardized health insurance. Every company offering interchangeable policies that are easy to compare, free of legal loopholes, and provide reliable coverage clearly defined and not subject to interpretation. Standards put everyone on a level field of competition. Then, the only issue is price.

The current system is the biggest rip off in history. Makes Madoff look like a piss ant. Yet many love it. Why?

Dis-information. Dome and Gloom. Insurance co's threaten congress - they will support their challenger. Lobbyists. Say Obama is a socialist, nazi, communist, pedophile, monkey.
??????????????????????

Would YOU put yourself into a position where some government functionary determines what you can and can't do - with YOU still being held responsible for the outcome?

I absolutely would do that before I put some insurance company, who's profit depends on denying claims for care.

Sounds a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Giving the power of choice to someone else, simply to prevent a despised third party from making profit seems like a pretty high price to pay - especially if it still leaves YOU responsible for the outcome.

You give the power of choice to your insurance company, and they damned sure aren't very trustworthy.

California health insurers reject 21% of claims. Their profit and overhead average 18%.

Why do people think that's a good thing?

Aleuicius,

Giving the power of choice to someone else,

See #16.15 for my response.

Thank you, SonOfLliberty2008.

SCTexan, the Medicare and Medicaid systems work fairly well, their increase in costs is actually below that of the country as a whole. There is fraud and waste, but anything the medical industry does has huge amounts of fraud and waste attached.

If you do research on medical costs, rates of malpractice, and countrywide statistics regarding our health as a society, I think you'll understand that the doctors have let us down, and don't deserve to run the system any more.

People don't really seem to understand that any insurance is essentially socialism, but with hefty profits for the insurance companies attached.

Aleucis, given that the average salary for a GP is over $110k a year, and for specialists, the sky's the limit, what's the big deal with paying off a loan of $100k? Sheesh, if you buy a Mercedes E class, they start at $48k.

Regarding taxes, you're completely right. We should junk income tax and go to a federal sales tax with food and housing exempt. Thieves and dope dealers would get to pay their taxes then, and those that spend more pay more, pretty simple.

I would totally agree that Congress should have the same sort of retirement and health plans that they set up for us average citizen types.

The cost of education is definitely overpriced, that's because the demand is being artificially increased by employers wanting a college degree for jobs that don't require that sort of education. One of my boys was applying for a temp burger flipping job, and they asked for a resume.................WTF??

we'd better roll up our sleeves and get started on the rest of them.

I think that's a very good idea even if this isn't coming.

There are two sides to demand/supply economics. You are only looking at demand. Why hasn't the supply increased to meet the demand and drive down cost?

The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves.

Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

Polls regarding doctors opinions are just so much hot air. If we cut doctor's pay in this country by 30%, we're still paying them more than they could make in any other country. What are they gonna do, go on welfare?

One thing I've noticed is that none of the people who think things are just peachy and should stay the way they are have any sort of numbers to support their claims, other than polls that say what doctors want us to believe.