Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
Cosmic Surfer - WE ARE the 99%
3670 Followers
Jorge Nery Emilio
68 Followers
chiefucfFeb 24, 2012
I have no problem with HMOs and other organizations that are supposedly trying to help you get well/feel better/etc. but when they're driven by a profit model, then they're broken - because from a business standpoint it's in the company's best interest to deny you coverage for anything.
It would be one thing if a good amount of their profits were used for research to help discover new cures, advancements in prosthesis creation, but they're not...they're just going into stockholder dividends. I'm all for capitalism but health care shouldn't be about profit - just about breaking even (maybe a little bit of profit to make sure those who run the healthcare organization make a fair wage).
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
About a year ago I worked with a patient, a lady in her 50's, who had come to the hospital because she had unexpectedly gained weight, had body pain, loss of memory and other symptoms.
The doctors quickly diagnosed her with metastatic cancer with a life expectancy of about three months. When I spoke with her she told me she knew that she was seriously ill about six months ago and that this type of cancer (can't remember how it started) runs in her family, but she was unable to afford the cost of doctor's visits and all of the necessary screenings. Her husband had been laid off and developed a serious mental illness and she lost her job as well, but their situation left them in a position where they couldn't benefit from local programs. Only with her now-terminal illness could she get on government assistance.
She was afraid if she went to seek treatment she would be harassed by collectors and eventually lose what little property they had, so she opted to let nature run its course. She died a couple of months later due to massive organ failure. Even more sad, I have more stories very similar this one.
We as a nation can do better for our people, especially those who are unable to provide these basic, lifesaving services for themselves. Is government run healthcare or the single payer system perfect? Nope, but what we have now is crushing the spirit and well being of millions of people that seek treatment in the USA. This country needs this sort of change in the health care system, desperately.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
There's 45,000 tragic stories like that every year in the USA. People are dying in agony as we speak and many countless more are suffering and sputtering along.
FIFTEEN 9/11 World Trade Center attacks a year... every year.
45,000 Americans murdered by greed... which in some ways is even more insidious than murdering Americans for dogma.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
You do realize that nearly half of all Americans are covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, right? So that 45k would be split between the greed of the private sector and the greed of the government.
That's the scary thing - our system is not free market nor is it single-payer. Instead, its a weird bastard mixture that gets none of the benefits, but all of the problems.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
You don't know what you're talking about. These deaths are from people who didn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. They died because they didn't have health insurance.
Read the study yourself so you know what you're talking about in the future:
http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
You are welcome.
novenatorFeb 24, 2012
Right now the US spends more per capita than any other developed nation in the world on healthcare, and 50 million people don't even have access to the system, with another 80 million under-insured with restricted access. A Single Payer system would guarantee universal cradle to the grave coverage and cut total costs by 30%. The corporate right just opposes it because it will cut into the precious profits of their corporate overlords.
omgscienceFeb 24, 2012
As a corporate overlord, I concur... 8*(
/s
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
Again, the simple test --- does the GOP support? If so, it (whatever *it* happens to be) is invariably skewed toward the rich and powerful.
If you're poor or middle class, this should make voting really easy.
southsideirishFeb 24, 2012
LoL! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You are so funny.
Both sides want to rip us off. Obamalamadingdongs health care program took care of the big insurance companies, so you can't trust him, or the left.
And we both know the right would screw us too.
So, who are we supposed to vote for? You said the choice was easy. Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, it is, were screwed no matter who gets elected.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
>LoL! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>Hahahahahahaha!
Your desperate laugh betrays you.
Educate yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI
southsideirishFeb 25, 2012
Yeah, Obamalamadigdong didn't give us healthcare that just puts money into the pockets of insurance companies. Dude, Democrats are crooks, just liike Republican's and are only interested in putting money into their, and their cronies pockets.
You are an idiot if they think they want to help us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rethreadFeb 25, 2012
Watch the video. A fully insured woman I worked with had a kidney stone. $13,000 dollars with a $3,000 deductible, after insurance. She went into serious debt after this and missed massive amounts of time at work attempting lower cost meds instead of having the correct procedure.
I researched it and that was the standard for prices and insurance deductibles in the U.S. It's a $700 procedure in India. She could have flown to India, had the correct procedure done, and had a vacation - paid less and taken less time off work.
I covered her work while she was gone off and on for a month. I felt anger, not at her, but at the system that was possibly killing her. This was just last year/2011. This is reality. What I see and experience CANNOT be changed by anybodies words.
jimfeetFeb 24, 2012
I am a small business owner/CEO. I provide healthcare coverage to my employees. I am personally covered by Medicare. I strongly support a single payer system.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Have your accountants every shown you just how much you paid/pay into Medicare?
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
History is quite clear, there will be no cost savings:
"In 1946, the British government estimated that the first-year cost of its
proposed National Health Service, which would provide free health care to all citizens at the point of service, would be £260 million. The actual
expenditures of the NHS in its first year of operation (1948-49) were £359 million—38% more than predicted.i"
http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Are_Health_Care_Reform_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf
"In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the
new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion"
http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Are_Health_Care_Reform_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
In 1967, no one (government or free enterprise) imagined that health care costs would rise at 3-10 times inflation.
Also, trying to predict anything more than 20 years in advance is just a wild guess.
But the history of single payer health care systems around the world suggests that we should be able to save some money.
No one spends more per person than we do with our "for profit" insurance system. And no one leaves as many people uncovered. Overall, Americans receive less coverage and it shows in the fact they we don't live as long.
By any reasonable measure, for profit healthcare insurance is a failure.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
You completely ignored the first example which showed the British Government was 38% off its cost estimates a mere 2 years later.
Second, life expectancy is influenced by many things, not just quality and availability of health care. America is the most obese of the industrialized nations and that is not only going to increase health care costs over comparable nations, its also going to lower life expectancy numbers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
You completely ignored the fact that the British, even with their poor estimate, still spend considerably less per capita than we do and cover everybody.
Which do you want to discuss, the quality of the care or the quality of the estimates?
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
I'm interested in discussing both, but I already know about the quality of the care and how they keep the costs down:
"The number of patients not being treated within the NHS waiting-time limit has soared by 43% since the coalition took office, official figures show."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/19/patients-missing-nhs-waiting-time-targetComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
The British pay half what we pay and also visit their doctors far more than we do. They also live longer than we do.
Therefore their system must be far inferior to ours, right?
http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/graphing-the-cost-of-health-care/
jqp123Feb 25, 2012
@barackalypse - You've got a bad case of religion.
Religion - Any system of thought where conclusions are accepted prior to or without supporting evidence.
rethreadFeb 25, 2012
Looking at the peltier tech graph above, I'm imagining mandatory private healthcare for every U.S. citizen. See the bottom bubble chart with the U.S. "outlier" at 8,000/ per for coverage at the bottom?
I'm imagining it at about 16,000/per, and looking at other countries, I'm thinking we're doing something very wrong that is hopefully being changed for the better.
yurmutha412Feb 27, 2012
European doctors are paid 2 to 5 times less than American doctors. Their drugs also cost about 50 percent less than in America. Since single payer won't change these things, cost won't be lower. Tests between private health care insurance and Medicare end up being about even up. The trouble with Medicare is a good share of that money goes into the debt and is never paid.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
barackalypse, for the love of God. Please educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI
You're nothing but a yapping parrot until you do.
norman619Feb 25, 2012
He also ignores the fact that ALL national healthcare plans are underfunded.
jqp123Feb 25, 2012
And yet through some sort of strange "magic" these governments with single payer systems are able to do the impossible using far less money than we do.
They cover everyone, they allow their citizens to go to their doctors far more than we do and in just about every case they live longer than we do.
After you look at all the evidence a reasonable person is almost forced to conclude that they get just as good if not better care than the average person in the US for less than half the cost.
The only remaining problem --- how to exclude any facts that don't fit your ideology.
norman619Feb 25, 2012
jqp:
I love how you ignore the fact that these programs are so expensive governments can't properly fund them growing their debt since they are forced to BORROW money to pay for them. You do get that programs like these make up the MAJORITY of our government's spending and debt right? I also suggest you look up US cancer survival rates vs your favored nationalized health care states.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 26, 2012
I love how you talk about expensive health care in other countries while living in the country with *the* single most expensive health care system by far in the world.
You're willing to pay twice as much for health care just in order to keep the government out of it. But the fact is, the money still comes out of your/our pockets. Regardless of who is running the insurance scam er, uh scheme, we all collectively have to pay the price.
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/
extremephobiaFeb 25, 2012
You know what costs me money? When my Health Insurance CEO wants a new yacht or 6 figure car. I hate it when that happens. It's too bad the cost of that doesn't go to someone who actually needs it...
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
As yes, government estimates. Good to know they are so accurate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/per-person-cost-of-federal-high-risk-medical-plan-doubles/2012/02/23/gIQAX3xVWR_print.html
"Each participant is expected to average $28,994 in medical costs in 2012, according to the report, more than double what government-contracted actuaries predicted in November 2010. Then, the analysts expected that the program would cost $13,026 per enrollee."
Think that maybe your talking point about the cost-savings might be off? Maybe if we start denying care. But then I was told the whole Death Panel thing was a lie?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayFeb 25, 2012
"Right now the US spends more per capita than any other developed nation in the world on healthcare"
Unless all other developed nations are using a single payer system your argument is a non-sequitur.
Our system is screwed up precisely because of government payouts and inflated entitlement syndrome among our people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferFeb 24, 2012
I've been ready for it for 50 years
tcbishop12Feb 24, 2012
Amen.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
Right on, brother.
jhbarrFeb 25, 2012
Considering 46 cents per dollar spent on health services in the U.S. in 2006 came from gov't sources (Doesn't include copays & premiums), I'd say it is inevitable.
http://www.allhealth.org/publications/cost_of_health_care/health_care_costs_toolkit.asp
bluenose2Feb 24, 2012
As a Canadian ,I have to wonder why this is taking so long for my neighbors to the south to figure this out. Our system has its flaws , yes, but it is a damned sight better knowing that you are being treated properly and not having to worry about possibly filing for bankruptcy because of the cost.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Profit. Profit is excess money. They need something to spend it on, so they spend it on propaganda and fear.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
"not having to worry about possibly filing for bankruptcy because of the cost."
Would you file bankruptcy if it was the only way to continue living? If not, why would you want to make others pay for that treatment? That's the third-party payer problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Before the housing bubble burst the number one cause of home foreclosures was medical bills.
That is the problem with for profit health care.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Citation? I'd love to see evidence of that. I find that hard to believe.
It was cited that 45 million Americans did not have health insurance. I believe it ended up 30 million did by no choice of their own. These are the ones that medical bankruptcy would be a primary driver of.
30 million would be roughly 10% of all Americans. So you're saying this one event would account for more foreclosures than any other issue?
I just find that hard to believe. Especially since those examples brought up during the debate were at the bottom of the income ladder, those least likely to even own homes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skinturtleFeb 25, 2012
I don't think a citation is necessary...it's a pretty well known issue.
All I ever hear of is how people go bankrupt over medical bills...how many people can;t afford it...and the ones that can...get refused their coverage over every little excuse!
I would be terrified to get an ailment down in the US. You guys are just part of a system in which you know of nothing else. Just wait until many of you get a medical card, can see any doctor you wish and not have an insurance company standing in the way every five minutes...aggravating the crap out of you.
The only ones who have a problem with this are the ones making big bucks in the insurance industry...and you disgust me.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
I'll ask the same question I've asked other - say you had a disease and the only way to save your life was to give up everything you had - essentially bankrupt yourself. Would you take that trade, deus ex machina, or would you die?
And if you would then decide to die, how could you then decide to make your neighbors pay for what you would not?
I don't have a problem with single payer. (I explained what I think would be a good system below in another comment) But as Europe (specifically the UK) has shown, it has real problems, similar problems to what we have here. When the cost of something is not presented to a person, they overconsume it. We see it here in the US - primary care doctors running a full battery of tests when its not medically necessary. Would that really stop if everything were run by a single insurance agency, government-run or otherwise?
See, I like to base things on economics and the studies on how people make decisions. That is the ultimate fault of the US' system - it considers neitheer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theexitwoundFeb 25, 2012
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
thx, theexitwound. Hopefully the lazy conservatives will thank you for doing the work for them. Or, they'll just continue to be lazy ingrates, I suppose.
theexitwoundFeb 25, 2012
I think it's that people who are afraid of the truth (because they believe it will damage their worldview) will not research that viewpoint. Even if presented with evidence forcefully, it will just be ignored or denied. This search took me 2 minutes to find and subsequently read THEN POST the link back here. And to be honest, I didn't know the rate of bankruptcy due to medical bills was as high as it was! I learnded stuffs.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
Exit, here's the good quote that I think signals the real problem with US HC:
"78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."
So was it that they did not have insurance (because of a lost job), was it their insurance did not cover enough (that's a problem even single payer will have).
I think we both agree that the current system is going to fail - tying anything to your employment is beyond stupid. If is such a great idea, why do we not force auto insurance through employers?
But to then just assume that a single payer system run by the government is going to solve all our problems is simple-minded. You will still have things that are not covered (one of the two ways the government can cut costs) or you will have waits (by lowering reimbusements, the other way, you drive supply out - basic economics).
I think we need to ditch our current system and ObamaCare, but the echo chamber among many scares me any more. The government can be just as bad as private sector - in fact, I think the reason its so bad now is we have both working together...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
> Citation?
> I'd love to see evidence of that.
> I find that hard to believe.
auditortux, what encumbers your fingers from finding this easily found evidence yourself? Is it your own predetermined agenda that's tightening up those muscles in your fingers or something else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI
Are you purposefully obtuse or just dense? Your faith-based opinions aren't cutting it, sorry.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
Ah yes, a news clip is going to be a great source of information. I actually prefer the CNN article that Exit Wound posted above.
What's interesting about that study is that many of the bankruptcies were to to health debts, true, but it was because they lost their insurance when they lost their job.
So tell me... was it the health industry that cause those bankruptcies, or was it the lack of a job? Both are a contributing factor.
In addition, most assume that single payer means everything will be covered. I doubt that will be the case, there will be "standard care" that will be covered (probably with a deductible of some sort) and then there will be extreme cases that won't be covered. If insurance companies cannot make it work and protect their profits, take away their 6% profit margin and how much more would that federal system be able to cover?
I do think we need a single payer, but an all-in-one system will just suffer the same problems we have now with our third-party payer. We need a federal system that is essentially catastrophic coverage - say covers most things after you hit a $2k deductable. You'd need to make that deductable a refundable tax credit, but also probably provide a net to help those who cannot afford a 2k hit.
But that's not what anyone is asking for. What they want here is someone to pay for everything... which won't solve our problems. If anything, it'll led to less supply as lower payments (which is one of the two ways the government can lower cost, the other being rationing) will drive older, secure doctors and professionals to retire. That's not good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 25, 2012
auditortux, you have a problem.
By showing that your predetermined dogma can't even allow you to research basic things like the largest cause of bankruptcy (from health issues)... you've lost all credibility with intelligent people.
You're pissing in the wind at this point because we all know you really don't know what you're talking about and everything you write at this point is tl;dr
cosmicsurferFeb 24, 2012
Look at the group of idealogues that screech whenever proposed - the top 1% who want the ability to stay alive at the expense of everyone else and the few who think they will still be able to make it to the mighty 400 (Forbes 400 most wealthy).
Insurance and corporate medical as well as the pharmaceutical companies (that charge the US citizen more for the same medications they sell to you for less.) pay to play, buying the propaganda and the political clout to keep the people ill and paying through the nose
elcalrissianFeb 24, 2012
Your culture is more homonegenous in attitude towards personal responsibility and community. You also have a less intrusive illegal immigration issue.
Im jealous, that that's why it's taken us so much longer.
theres 300 million of us too gashdarndit!
boner11Feb 24, 2012
As someone that grew up in Buffalo, NY I have seen the symptoms of the "Free" Canadian healhcare system at the Galleria Mall in Buffalo everyday... I don't blame Canadians for crossing the border for clothes, I wouldn't pay 17% sales tax either.
One of the main problems here is the Government. If you are a doctor and have a patient of medicaid and bill the Government $10,000 for this persons procedures, and the Government reimburses you $7,500. Where are you going to pick up the balance? The patients with private insurance will end up paying more... As more people go on the government tit... see where I'm headed here?
Anyone else notice in this 3 page article that the words "Doctor" or "Nurse" do not show up once?
The more the Government gives you the more they can take away...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sarahleeFeb 24, 2012
This has been obvious to anyone willing to think logically - as opposed to ideologically - about what has been going on with our system over the past 25 years. Can’t happen soon enough.
If you want to help be a part of this change, join Healthcare-NOW - the citizen driven organization working to educate neighbors and lobby for this change.
novenatorFeb 24, 2012
That's a really good outfit. I really hope we can get this done as a nation. Our current health care system is terrible.
merelywatchingFeb 24, 2012
thanks for the referral!
jpurdyFeb 24, 2012
Thanks for the info - http://www.healthcare-now.org/
sarahleeFeb 25, 2012
Thanks for adding the link.
jpurdyFeb 25, 2012
You're welcome, thank you.
shwaavayFeb 25, 2012
I beg your pardon but I happen to consider myself someone who thinks logically.
I find that looking at the last 20 years show that the problem is how much healthcare costs, not who pays for it. I furthermore find that analyzing the curve in rise of cost puts the blame squarely on government influence in the healthcare industry.
I will admit that a single payer system would be infinitely better than the obnoxious conglomeration of bloated insurance companies and government regulation that we are currently facing thanks to PPACA. I do however believe we could achieve far greater success by focusing on what the government is doing to increase costs and stifle competition.
/logicComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 25, 2012
"I do however believe we could achieve far greater success by focusing on what the government is doing to increase costs and stifle competition"
Then logically, you should have a idea on what your talking about and be able to explain a little better
Also, since we are talking logic here, its logical to expect some proof of your assertions.
shwaavayFeb 25, 2012
Okay, I'll prove the future of my plan right after you prove the future of yours.
How do neutrinos work again?
letherialFeb 25, 2012
maybe you didn't understand,
I asked for proof of your assertions that the government increases cost, you didn't say that it will happen, just that it does; these basis come from somewhere, and id like to know where.
At the minimum i am asking why you think the government is raising prices, whats your logic to connect the two. I am not asking you to predict the future.
shwaavayFeb 25, 2012
I happened across this today, but like the article says, it's basic economics.
http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/why-college-aid-makes-college-more-expensive-1330033152060/
"If subsidies puff up buying power and shift prices higher, as economics courses teach, could federal aid for college help create an affordability problem?"
Same situation with healthcare. The more free money you inject into a market, the more inflation there is.
letherialFeb 26, 2012
Even though this has nothing to do with healthcare, I guess i see your point.
Honestly these schools should be regulated if they can get federal funds...but i think the primary driver is the student loan service, not because of the government though..that is a way to misplace blame on who is really responsible, and that is schools getting way to greedy and throwing a bunch of paper work on someone who just wants to get a degree.
Many colleges have moved from a learning institution to a scam, i have dealt with a few myself.
Fortunately, online education is going to curve that, i pay 3k every 6 months and this covers everything i need. I have never been more happy at a school and i have no complaints with WGU.
austinjameshereFeb 24, 2012
I've had health insurance in both Canada and the US - I'd take the single payer model any day... the US system is just a mess - more expensive for worse healthcare. The Affordable Care Act fixed a few things, but not including single payer was a huge mistake.
skinturtleFeb 25, 2012
Some of you people in the US are some greedy and selfish. "Oh I might have to pay into a system that helps someone else!!"
Swine.
elcalrissianFeb 24, 2012
What I always wanted Obamacare to be.
I'd like to mention Pure Capitalism here.
this is an example. A player within the private HC industry admitting that single payer, single cost system will prevail, due to natural ceilings and evolution of the market.
Macroeconomics states that in a pure system, the Conumer, producer, supplier and retailer will reach a natural equilibrium.
This DID happen recently, with a Natural system.
AOL, earthlink, MSN, and other early Web Providers had control of the pricing with their newly established market. What happened? $20 a month flat fee. remember hourly fees? Yeesh! The Market and Consumers agreed on what we would pay...and it worked.
HC is far more complicated. Necessary government regulations (and many unnecessary ones) set unnatural price floors and cielings, limiting the natrual market to equalize, which is why we've seen such problems within HC in the last 30 years, as the modern economy changed the established insurance businesses.
i happy to see an Industry insider admit this. It's going to take time, but we're headed there, it seems, in-spite of Government intervention.
(I've been wanting the wireless/telecom industry to do this. SOMEONE will come out with a flat $40 unlimited plan, and that'll change the game forever.)
eclintFeb 26, 2012
That was the plan all along
funduck74Feb 25, 2012
Very interesting article. As a non-doctor owner in chain of pediatric dental clinic that concentrates on serving economically depressed rural communities as well as a couple wellness centers I could not agree more that the current system is broken. A huge issue is the lack of funding reaching the providers of care. As a business person, and not a doctor, my role in the companies is to make the business functions more efficient in an attempt to maintain financial solvency while state and private payers are reducing benefits.
An answer to the issue we are considering is to bypass the system altogether and begin our own insurance company in pediatric chain. If success and I have seen this model be very successful in parts of the country, I will bring the same idea to the wellness center in form of a "preventative plan". By taking out the margin needed for administrative overhead, which is very heavy in both private and public systems, we can lower the cost to the patient while increasing the revenue to the clinics.
I understand that this works nicely in mico environments and for specialists but the original concept that Keiser was built on might be a better model to use in more regional settings. The problem I see major medical overcoming is how to insure people who travel and need to seek help outside their system.
By expanding on the concept of "writers", with a twist, I think we can get to a structure that covers people, maintains cash flow to providers and limits the hyperinflation seen in insurance premiums. People can choose what they would like to cover from major medical, dental, chiropractic care and so on... all from private companies who are providing the end care to the patient.
Example: the state of Oregon pays us $13 mo to see a child on Medicaid (OHP) and 75% of our fee schedule when we have to take a child to the operating room. We actually make money on this while providing high quality care and paying our doctor a very competitive salary. We have calculated that if the state paid us $20 per child per month regardless of the treatment we end up at the same place financially.
So, How much are you paying for your dental writer? $40, $50 or even $60?
The talk of Universal Coverage handled by the government is one not to be tossed out there lightly. So far in traveling to every industrialized nation in the world I with no doubt tell you that the people in those countries are no better off... and pay more in personal taxes than we do. The public system in those countries (Canada, Britain, Germany to list the good ones) are over run, understaffed, underpaid and losing the battle of replacing their doctors since no one wants to go to an expensive medical school only to get out and get paid a common wage. Unions, administrative costs, government mandating treatment plans for doctors... these are all costly downsides of public health.
The answer is not the government or major insurance companies fighting over big profits but the providers of care. Its time we put the system back in control of the people actually using it and providing the services.
rethreadFeb 25, 2012
I respect your opinion, as you are clearly having to deal with this issue on the front lines. (If you're not lying.)
I tend to liken the issue to musicians... give me a moment! The people doing the work get paid very little because they get paid, not directly for their work, but by an intermediary. I personally don't think anyone should have to pay a "fortune" to learn how to fix other people in the first place. Education and Healthcare are too vital for the survival of a people to be squeezed out of existence for profit. It will kill a nation. Healthcare keeps the educated people around longer, be they minor custodians of life, or movers and shakers.
We seem to be doing a piss poor job in this area in this country. We all know it, and I'd like to thank you for sharing your personal experiences. I'd also like to personally apologize for any of the down-votes from the denizens of the internet. I LIKE people who express their experiences with life, it educates me, my new found friend. And this is how we grow.
EDIT: The pleasure is mine to be your first follower. Fair winds and following seas, my friend.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Frankly I'm excited as having to pay for insurance is probably the last thing keeping me tethered to a full-time job in the city. Since under a single payer universal access system the Government will be providing it for free to low income people, all I need to do is cut my work hours until I hit that level and then all of you who advocate for this system can bear the responsibility of providing it for me. At that income level I won't be paying any Federal income tax, I should qualify for that free Government cell phone program, and maybe even food assistance.
It'll be great, all of you arguing for these programs will get to pay for me to relax my days away at your expense.
rethreadFeb 25, 2012
Yes, you should do that. You should do that right now, so you can tell everyone how it works out for you. When you're accessing the internet from your local library, after walking there, we'll know you've succeeded. We'd like a full report of the trials and tribulations, all of them, during your proposed adventure.
Hints for stealing your way onto your local mass transit might be helpful too. I'm curious about that. It appears that blinding yourself might significantly ease your access to the "good life".
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/20/the-ultimate-system-free-mass-transit-and-congestion-pricing/
http://www.brl.org/intro/braillers.html
All for free. Do take advantage of all these "entitlement" programs, and don't forget to report back with the wonders/and or failures you've encountered along the way. You should start right away... The easy life is within your grasp even as we speak.
agmlauncherFeb 25, 2012
As this article states, unless we get the COSTS of healthcare under control, the model doesn't matter much. Whatever savings we get from shedding redundant administrative costs will come right back to bite us in the ass if hospitals, doctors, and the companies that make medical equipment, are charging out the ass for services (e.g. $1,000 ambulance rides....)
jqp123Feb 25, 2012
"As this article states, unless we get the COSTS of healthcare under control, the model doesn't matter much."
It should be obvious by now that the "free market" can't/won't do it so the only chance is something different.
Health care is not, has not and never will be a "free market". The first step toward making health care even approach "free market" conditions is to exclude any consumer that can't pay and isn't profitable.
Most people don't want to live in a society that does this.
rixar13Feb 25, 2012
Indeed, Mark offers a considerable measure of praise for Obamacare saying, “For most of what has already been implemented, it has been a pretty good thing.”
Thumbs up ^.... smile :-)
mikeymondaviFeb 25, 2012
Personally i'm looking forward to getting rich from the medical black-market. I can't trust government to run a healthcare system, let alone and efficient one, however once they prohibit private insurance, the lack of inefficiencies start piling on, medical rationing begins and the quality of medicine declines, this is going to make me filthy rich when i start collecting stockpiles of meds and a posse of doctors who don't want to be government employees or have their profession destroyed when government steps in to take over a system that they a) caused in the first place and b) know next to nothing about. Bring it on.
rethreadFeb 25, 2012
Go to ANY other civilized country and start profiting by all means then. Or wait! The U.S. govn't has blocked affordable Canadian medicine from being transported illicitly into the U.S. (Cuts into someone's profits apparently.)
It's already happened, and you've sadly not noticed. There's no need to wait! It's been going on for about 3yrs now. You may be behind the curve, but, there's still time. I hear HIV meds are the most profitable right now... Never ask how I know these things. Never.
You could be "filthy rich" right now, nothing's stopping you from trying. Viagra is overdone and scam-ridden, but, HIV drugs are a hidden black market. No need to wait for your fortune. Or move elsewhere. Or wait for some new legislation. It's been going on for awhile in our broken system. You should take advantage of it before someone fixes it. Go. Start now. Canada is the best (safest) bet, Mexico is a rip-off, Africa is high risk high profit (Govn't controls donated drugs and sells them for guns and other things).
There is nothing to bring on. It has already been brought. You just never noticed. Makes me a little sad, there's still time though before it's fixed though. Go now, make your fortune, and good luck improving everyone's lives.
33percentgodFeb 25, 2012
We live in one of the richest nations, yet our sick are left to have fundraisers and basically beg for money with a tin can in the streets when they get sick. Absolutely disgusting.
irvman21Feb 25, 2012
And who wouldn't want going to the doctor to be like going to the DMV?
roywrFeb 24, 2012
I'm, for one, not ready for Obamacare and their plan to dismantel Medicare with cuts to run free medical insurance for so-called poor people. We, older citizens, worked all our lives and now the government wants to screw us over with our health care and their cost cutting health boards. These boards are really "Death Boards" because they will decide who get treatment or who sent home to die with a few pills.My only hope is that the supreme court throws out Obamacare. If, it doesn't, I told all my senior friends, "DON'T GET SICK".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
With all due respect, don't senior citizens have a single payer system precisely because private health insurance is un-affordable for people after a certain age?
And isn't government obligated to consider the cost of providing certain health services? I would personally prefer the government make these decisions through a public "health board" than I would a private for-profit corporation who makes the decision based on how profitable it is to keep me alive.
I respect and admire your generation. I really think that some of the greatest Americans came from those people who are over age 70 right now. That said, I feel like your arguments are being made based on anti-Obama talking points.
penglustFeb 24, 2012
Some of it is the talking points but a large part of it is fright and greed.
Although I always say I hope I will have the courage to know when the fight for my life should be over and that by family will let it be so. But in the end the will to live and the fear of dying are strong emotions.
The second, and I believe biggest part is greed. The same greed that infects so much in this country. The "I got mine, don't f**k with it" mentality.
jpurdyFeb 24, 2012
We all pay the cost of emergency medical care for people who either cannot afford or choose not to have medical insurance. We pay for that cost in higher insurance premiums and higher taxes. A recent estimate of that cost in Texas was $1800 per year per household.
In addition, it's a huge problem for company human resources people in running their insurance programs. Any one of them could tell you how much higher their company's insurance premiums are due to employees who choose not to pay for coverage. They know they can go to a hospital emergency room, at everyone's expense.
A rational single payer system, including required contributions from everyone who can afford them, would provide preventive care and consolidated services that would save $millions.
The major reason we don't have such a system now is the objections of those who profit most from the situation as it is. The corruption in the system is exemplified by the unfunded medicare prescription act passed under the Bush administration. Seniors benefit, but all of the money goes directly to the drug companies. Note "unfunded" - a direct increase to our deficit, passed by W and the Republicans. (yes I know, Edward Kennedy had something to do with it as well)
scamper22Feb 24, 2012
preventative care doesn't save any money.
Prevention is good for the sake of health... but it doesn't save money.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/02/05/unhealthy-study.html
healthy people live longer and it is the end of life costs that end up costing the most money.
Only rationing (aka death panels) will really reduce end of life costs... which consume most of our healthcare resources.
A rational single player system would be good... except when is the last time, the government created a 'rational' program?
More than likely every lobby group will be at the governments door demanding their service gets covered under the health insurance program... driving up the cost of health insurance.
The only 'rational single payer system' would be to have it only cover catastrophic care. But given how the Obama administration has handled it so far, that's off the table. They made the minimum coverage level higher due to special interests groups... you can only expect the cost of healthcare to keep going up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Feb 24, 2012
The article is a stinking pile of BS. It does not take into account productivity over the persons healthy portion of their lives and their ability to pay into a system.
"The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."
Further, it makes a massive non-backed claim about a healthy person vs. an obese person, there are so many more factors. This study is a complete piece of crap. What's a smoker? Who's obese? What other problems in the groups occurred due to ignoring preventative medicine? Maybe the smoker went to the Doctor every week and the so called healthy person didn't and it was a huge factor in the long run? How do you know who practiced preventative medicine in any of these groups? Etc...
So government can't do anything? Got us to the moon. It won WW2. The internet, etc.... It has done a lot. Medicare runs more cheaply than private health insurance right now. The concept is sound, the argument then is to improve performance and admittedly there is lots of room for improvement. Also, why not have both? Extend medicare to everyone who wants it and have a private health care industry on top for those who want it and can afford it, like in Canada. Why is it always one or the other?
Obamacare was a stick in the mud and should be improved over time not attacked and destroyed. it should be modified as needed and a big part of its intent was to deal directly with rising costs of healthcare.
A good Republican stance should be it was a nice try, and here is how we can make it way better and where Obama fell way short. But no, its repeal and go back to what is clearly broken with some kind of retarded voucher plan and pretax crap that takes an army of statisticians and accountants to figure out what's best for you and in the end doesn't improve the situation at all, in fact makes it far worse.
I don't mind people bashing it if they have a better alternative, but they never do. All they do is jump up and down and cry about it.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but since everybody dies, doesn't everyone have "end of life costs"?
That article is certainly interesting food for thought. It's the same reason that motorcycle insurance is so inexpensive compared to car insurance - there is less chance that an accident will leave the person in need of long-term care.
I always was under the impression that smokers and the obese needed more care throughout their whole lives and that is what made their care more expensive.
scamper22Feb 24, 2012
yes, but a healthy person is likely to go through a much longer end of life period. We all get sick when we get old... and the longer you stay old... the more health costs there are.
Strictly from a money stand point, an obese person who dies of a heart attack at 65 is a very low-cost person.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Thanks, that's clearer
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Oh, I get it now. That is the republicon health care plan.
Die young and die fast.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Ohhh snap
jimfeetFeb 24, 2012
I am a small business owner/CEO. I provide healthcare coverage to my employees. I am personally covered by Medicare. I strongly support a single payer system.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
If there is no profit then what will be the motive to provide the service?
Do farmers produce food for profit?
Do government employees work for profit?
Do construction workers work for profit?
Do YOU work for profit?
I am a health care provider and I can tell you from my own personal experience and the personal experiences of my associates that the worst health care entitties to deal with are medicare and medicaid. The easiest entities to work with are the "for profit" health insurance companies. For this reason, many of my friends have stopped taking on new medicare or medicaid patients.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
The private payers are easier to deal with (as a health care provider) because they're motivated to maintain your business and keep the money rolling in. That doesn't mean it ultimately benefits the countless people filing for bankruptcy or some committing suicide because of insurmountable medical bills. Is that really worth the profit?
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
You are woefully misinformed. Health insurance companies arent worried about keeping MY business because I cost them money when I provide my services. The business they are trying to keep is that of employers that that they contract with to provide health insurance to their employees.
Acme Insurance Co. wants to to keep the business of Acme Computers because Acme Computers pays the health insurance benefits of its employees TO Acme Insurance Company. Insurance companies make their profit from the companies they insure. Health care providers COST the health insurance company money. They way health insurance companies compete for business is by keeping health care costs contained. They do that by reimbursing guys like me less. Get it?
And there are not "countless people" filing for bankruptcy and committing suicide over medical bills. Yes, it happens, but not countless people.
If you cant pay your mortgage you file for bankruptcy. There is no free help to make your mortgage payment for you. People fall on hard times. Life is a bitch and bad things happen. Accept it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
your argument is pointless, I said they're easier to deal with as a health care provider. So, ignoring your rant and skipping to this:
"And there are not "countless people" filing for bankruptcy and committing suicide over medical bills. Yes, it happens, but not countless people"
I said "some", not countless people committing suicide. Reading comprehension, do u has it?
"If you cant pay your mortgage you file for bankruptcy. There is no free help to make your mortgage payment for you. People fall on hard times. Life is a bitch and bad things happen. Accept it."
As a so called "christian nation", this is the solution you have for people who can't afford life-saving health care services? You compare it to a mortgage and say "life is a bitch"? I can't imagine what it's like to be you.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
sorry, my reading comprehension failed. Your argument was in regard to providers, not patients (my bad). Still, your argument about reimbursement doesn't have enough information for me to respond in any way. Most insurance companies have fee schedules they use to determine across the board payments to their providers. If you're not being compensated fairly, it may be due to incorrect billing or a slew of other things. The insurance companies simply can't pay you $50 for a $200 service, there are regulations in place to protect you as a contractor so I'm not sure what your issue is.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
I get reimbursed just fine. Im not complaining about reimbursement rates. I am pointing how, in contradiction to your point that insurance companies want to keep the business of providers, that insurance companies only have one group of people who's business they want to keep: those that PAY them health insurance premiums (employeers and private individuals).
I COST them money so I am not their "business". Employers PAY them so they like to keep employers happy by providing a better product than their competitors. They do that by offering their service for less money. They can offer their service for less money by decreasing reimbursement rates. Reimbursement rates differ between insurance companies. I can sign a contract agreeing to take what they are willing to pay. I sign lots of contracts with lots of different companies. They all reimburse at different rates. If the rate isnt good enough, I dont sign.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
I understand your frustration as a provider, but I've worked for a large insurance company before and I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle. They want both companies and providers' business.
This is why - they want you to submit claims and they don't mind reimbursing you for services in the participants' plan. Keeping you happy attracts more customers for them because you're how they market themselves. If they can keep their providers happy and reimbursed properly (and on their contracts) more patients are likely to sign up with their service. Maybe you've had some bad experiences with private payors, I'm not sure exactly what your deal is.
Trust me, insurance companies are not sitting behind closed doors cackling "how can we screw over this x-ray technician", they're cackling "how can we provide the smallest amount of coverage for this patient at the highest possible price". That's my argument.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
and (sorry, tried to edit) I'm not disagreeing with you about low reimbursement. I know a lot of insurance companies reimburse at low rates. My main point is that they want to keep your business too. Without it they can't get the big companies to sign up with their health plan.
and I know we had some harsh words for one another, but thanks for elaborating your point. I hope I elaborated mine properly.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
"your argument is pointless" Yeah, because you got pwned.
So people file for bankruptcy? It exists for a reason. It exists to help people get out of debt they can no longer afford.
If you file for bankruptcy because of medical bills you end up paying little to nothing for the health care you recieved. Pretty sweet deal. Meanwhile, your health care provider got pennies on the dollar for providing you the service. Sound fair? Perhaps it would be fair if you only recieved .40 cents on the dollar for the work you do.
You keep whining about how tough life is.
I can hear you now: "Oh, Ive smoked my whole life and ate fast food three times a day and now I need a CABG x 6 at the age of 55. Ive had my legs amputated because of uncontrolled diabetes so now I cant work. Its not fair that I have to pay for my health care!" Waaaaaa!
The biggest problem this stinking country has is its "christian values" that teach we are supposed to take care of the sick, the afflicted, and the elderly. I wholly reject that. I am not a christian.
Life is tough. Youre going to suffer. You will die. There is no government agency that will prevent it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
How can I get "pwned" by an argument that consists only of your awful nihilistic worldview and a basic description of insurer/contractor relationships?
concusionFeb 24, 2012
ghengis is a conservative sheep. No amount of facts would ever change his mind on anything that those sheep believe. the conservative position is clear, keep the status quo, let insurance companies (middle men) make all the profit and f**k people over to make a profit (as you said, the business model is f**king people over) Even facts and truth are not good enough anymore, ghengis sheep here has been brainwashed.
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
"If there is no profit then what will be the motive to provide the service?"
Oh my gosh you're right!
That probably explains why people in Canada and Europe live longer than people in the US -- these other countries have single payer healthcare. They've taken the profit out of it so doctors can't kill as many people.
penglustFeb 24, 2012
Over radiated, over medicated hypocondriacs are good business.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
You cannot compare the populations (health habits, eating habits, lifestyle choices) of the USA and any other country. You cant even compare state to state within the USA because of so many variables.
Try comparing white people that live in Wisconsin to people (all white) that live in Norway. They will be genetically similar. You will STILL see a difference because of diet and lifestyle. You cannot force people to be healthy. They have higher life expectancies because they are more healthy than we are. They are more healthy because of better lifestyle choices. They make better lifestyle choices because of their culture and because they do not have a McDonalds on every corner selling them garbage that is killing them.
A government run health care system will only increase life expectancy IF there is a total ban on all unhealthy lifestyle choices. You will not be allowed to weight over 200lbs if youre a male and over 150lbs if youre a female. You will not be allowed to smoke or eat processed sugar. You diet will ONLY consist of lean protein and green leafy vegetables. That is how you increase life expectancy.
You are seriously misinformed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vectorbFeb 24, 2012
Gee I missed the part where it says that the health care field would all start working for free.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Say we adopt a single payer system. There are only two real ways the government can reduce cost. The first is to have fewer people seek treatment. But that won't happen on its own as study after study show people over-consume things that are free. And with a single payer, it seems free. The only choice left is to force people to not seek treatment by denying coverage. Fewer patients literally turns into fewer customers for those in the medical industry. Fewer customers means less revenue... so now they're not going to earn as much.
The other option is to simply tell those in the medical industry that what was being paid at $5000 a surgery is now going to be $4000. Force them to take a 20% haircut... or whatever the forced reduction is. Now they're not going to earn as much.
Not saying that they'll work for free, but you're hitting them in their pocketbooks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vectorbFeb 24, 2012
So you are saying that you want to keep the current system because you think its ok for surgeons to over charge you?
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Are surgeons overcharging you?
Say that you are operating a non-profit clinic and that you adjust your expenses so you break even. If you know that, on average, 1 patient out of ten won't pay, you are going to charge more to those other 9 to make up that difference - just to break even.
Its a standard business practice - credit cards do this all the time.
If it were me, I'd much rather have a system where a person incurs all the costs of medical care, up to a certain amount, at which point a single payer system takes care of the rest (essentially a catastrophic insurance plan). Oh, but all those payments would be good as refundable tax credits - so if you did hit that deductable, say $2k, you'd have a credit to that years taxes of $2k.
The incentive there is to not overconsume health services if not really needed, but you're still protected from major events. Now, we'd need some support for the poorest, but that would be an adjustment to Medicaid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
How much do you think we would pay if our drug costs were the same as the civilized world? There is a reason people buy their drugs overseas.
sarahleeFeb 25, 2012
There are also a lot of savings in cutting out the middle man insurance companies and their overhead and profits.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
The article is about health insurance companies. I am speaking about health insurance companies. It is very clear. Im sorry you have no reading comprehension skills.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Feb 24, 2012
BS, all I ever do is fight with my so called health care provider. They marginalize their pay out to me and my doctor and keep me in a tight circuit of providers that I may or may not want to use. I've had to pay thousands of dollars on top of very simple routine health care. For profit health insurance are a huge middleman not dedicated to serving anyone but themselves and the doctors who've learned to game the system (yes, many Doctors end up recommending things they know makes them a quick and easy profit at the expense of the patient in premiums and less effective care). A good private healthcare provider takes in as much revenue as possible and pays out as little as possible. That's just business. That model works great for smart phones and flat screen TV's, but sucks for health care. Sorry, you're in the wrong business, it is a completely broken and parasitic business model.
chassupFeb 24, 2012
NO!
scamper22Feb 24, 2012
yeah it is coming to an end, but the high cost of healthcare has little to do with the insurance companies and everything to do with the medical providers (doctors, nurses, drug companies...)
That's how it is in every insurance business. Insurance is always a skim 10% off the top kind of business.
Will the end of for profit insurance do anything to lower the cost of healthcare... not really.
That will only happen if the government uses the single payer system to bring down the wages of health care professionals, rations care...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
howdoesseanrollFeb 24, 2012
What are you smoking? Currently, the most wasteful part of healthcare spending is administrative costs (over 30%) - educate yourself before pulling the "Oh no, our health care will be rationed!" card: http://www.pnhp.org/
scamper22Feb 24, 2012
healthcare being rationed is a good thing. Pretending you can have a sustainable healthcare system without rationing is living in fantasy land and will bankrupt any system.
'death panels'.. .whatever you want to call them are a good thing.
Do you think the cost of administration is 0% for a public system?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
So in the US admin costs are 30%
In Canada, they are 16%.
Whoop de do... a savings of 15%. That's sales tax.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustFeb 24, 2012
A friend of mine is an anesthesiologist from Germany. He how work here because he earns more than triple his income in Germany. He also works far less.
This just can't be right.
KapsiotFeb 24, 2012
Single-Payer Health Care Is Coming To America - no it's not.
skywiseFeb 24, 2012
No it's not.
kalvinbFeb 25, 2012
Meanwhile, Europe is moving to privatize health insurance.
Aetna provides health insurance through companies. That system doesn't work because it's absurdly expensive for young people and therefore, they opt for individual insurance on their own at a fraction of the price, leaving Aetna on the hook for people who have pre-existing conditions or just generally take more than they put in. If you have 20 kids all with Cancer, Aetna has to pay the bill with the same "Family" plan that someone with 1 kid pays for.
So of course Aetna likes single-payer. That would force everyone to buy very expensive health insurance they don't need.
I pay $63 a month for Blue Cross Blue Shield which will prevent bankruptcy in the event something major happens. The minimum cost for far worse insurance through an employer is 5-6 times that.
Single-payer is great if you've got half a dozen kids. It's not so great for the rest of us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
"for-profit model sucks about $400 billion a year out of our health care dollars to pay for administrative costs —costs that largely disappear in a public system where administrative costs run dramatically lower. "
Wrong, in 2005 Medicare's per beneficiary administrative costs ran 12% HIGHER than private insurance.
"In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/2/
And in truth its administrative costs are actually worse since other Government agencies perform some of the administrative tasks for Medicare (the IRS and Social Security Administration collect its premiums).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dalvomaiaFeb 25, 2012
The great insurance for Healt CARE in all Country. Speaking, MARK BERTOLI, CEO.