Health care costs to top $8,000 per person

[OhioChick]

Source: AP

updated 12:02 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 24, 2009
WASHINGTON - A new government report on medical costs paints a stark picture for President Barack Obama, who is expected to call for a health care overhaul in a speech Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress.

Even before lawmakers start debating how care is delivered to the American people, the report shows the economy is making the job of reform harder.

Health care costs will top $8,000 per person this year, consuming an ever-bigger slice of a shrinking economic pie, says the report by the Department of Health and Human Services, due out Tuesday.

As the recession cuts into tax receipts, Medicare's giant hospital trust fund is running out of cash more rapidly, and could become insolvent as early as 2016, the report said. That's three years sooner than previously forecast.

At the same time, the government's already large share of the nation's health care bill will keep growing.

Programs such as Medicaid are expanding to take up some of the slack as more people lose job-based coverage. And baby boomers will soon start reaching 65 and signing up for Medicare. Those trends together mean that taxpayers will be responsible for more than half of the nation's health care bill by 2016 — just seven years from now.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231

[ixion]

1. perhaps if congress would reign in the insurance and pharmaceutical companies

and regulate the healthcare industry, rather than capitulating to them, then maybe costs would be more reasonable.

Just a thought.

[glinda]

54. A start would be to ban Pharma commercials on tv and radio.

[imdjh]

71. Truly

I realize that there might be two sides to that, on the one hand I don't think that drug companies should be encouraging people to diagnose themselves or prescribe drugs, but on the other hand I suppose that there are people out there with doctors that don't stay current.

Of course, there are third hands and fourth hands as well. Third might be that most of the drugs that you see being advertised aren't new drugs at all, they are reformulations because the active ingredients have aged into generics. Fourth would be that it's virtually impossible for a doctor to be out of the loop when drug reps visit doctors' offices like a swarm on a weekly basis.

[customerserviceguy]

75. First Amendment concerns would prevent a ban

but denying the deductability of advertising costs in excess of "x" percent of revenues would certainly do the trick. I want drug companies to be able to provide literature and samples to health care professionals, but the blitz of advertising is just a needless waste.

[glinda]

82. They are banned in some countries for just those reasons. We do not need them

and ads costs millions to run. They are just propaganda anyways. If a good physician is up on his stuff (and not paid off to rep the drug), there is no point then is there. They are just pushing drugs. And look what has happened to some people that are taking 20-30 pills a day because of taking the approach that "drugs" are the answer instead of other methods.

[bemildred]

2. Nationalize the HMOs. A stupid idea, now demonstrably a failed idea. nt

[harun]

35. Yep, stupid idea from DAY ONE.

[drdtroit]

3. If we implemented single-payer universal health care the costs

of health care would diminish as people could actually practice preventative care.
This will never happen in the USA because of insurance companies and big pharm.
There is too much profit in catastrophic care and the treating of symptoms.
We're fucked.

[Lorien]

5. Indeed. The entire "system" is set up to enrich a handful of people

in the Insurance and big pharma industries. As long as they can charge $15 a pill for drugs that sell for 0.20 each in other counties they'll keep doing it. They own our politicians on both sides, so progress toward lowering costs (outside of lowering care) will never be made.

[primavera]

59. I think insurance is the biggest culprit

Supposedly 60% of the cost of health care in this country has nothing whatsoever to do with health care provision, but is purely administrative cost, chiefly managing the vast ocean of insurance red tape, bickering with insurance companies over who's going to have to pay for what, challenging claim denials, etc., etc.. I think this has to be a big part of why the rest of the world is able to offer better health care cheaper: all of that squabbling over coverage can be reduced to a single high school dropout equipped with a rubber "Approved" stamp.

[bluedawg12]

66. Hospitals rake in the $$$$ hand over fist.

Our non-profit, Our Lady of Wall Street, owns the whole f*cking town, even construction companies.

[imdjh]

72. I thought we voted for national single payer. Was I wrong?

Seriously, I thought that we were pretty clear that we expected the new Congress and President to institute a national single payer plan. OK, so I didn't see them sign a contract, but did I imagine the consensus?

I'm wondering about the thing I just go in email with "Tim Kaine" bragging about health care program for kids. Frankly, that's not what I was aiming for and I don't see it as incremental. I wasn't talking about "free" healthcare that the repubs were bitching about (socialist blah blah blah) I was talking about us all paying our premiums into (essentially Medicare) instead of paying them to insurance companies until we get old and then getting put into Medicare just when we start needing serious care. It's not that I don't want the kids to have health coverage, it's just that it seems like were getting the "unfunded mandate" before we fix the economics of the system.

[Lost in CT]

4. We need to curtail our spending on "High impact patients" and low return end of life procedures

and spend more on preventive care.

With universal healthcare we will have to make some tough choices such as an age limit for treatment and a lifetime cap for chronic diseases that take up much ofthe healthcare dollars.

[Coventina]

11. Maybe we should just execute diabetics after the age of 65.

Tough choice, but hey, why throw good money after bad?

[zogofzorkon]

16. why age 65?

why just diabetics? if they can't work for medical reasons and don't have money; either by birth, theft, or luck then they are of no benefit at any age, cut them loose. You are never too young to be disposable.

[undergroundpanther]

48. can I dispose

of you? Why don't you go first! Look, you are wasting air I need,food I need...the bandwidth ...you,you,consumer of MY world!!!!

Think about it,once one type of person is made a disposable class in a greed driven culture like ours,it will eventually be you that is thrown away..regardless of how invulnerable you like to pretend you are.Some greedy pig will classify you as not deserving.

[zogofzorkon]

58. Sure

That makes you a productive citizen and insures your place in our great society. Just drive the price of my food beyond my reach, or reduce my wages to pocket change; soon enough I won't be breathing or wasting bandwidth.

No one is deserving, we are allowed to live only as long as we fatten the wallets of the wealthiest.

[undergroundpanther]

15. Eugenics much?

Lost in CT wrote:
<We need to curtail our spending on "High impact patients" and low return end of life procedures..>

..In other words..ONLY THE STRONG and HEALTHY DESERVE HEALTHCARE!

Hmm.. that's how insurance companies think about the costs of helping disabled, sick or injured people too,some people they think are too costly therefore must become disposable. Deny them help and let 'em die.

It's all dandy until you become weak,old,disabled or sick,or your spouse or child does, then your tune will change.It's amazing how right wing bullshit vanishes during a crisis that hits the home of those spewing this shit,changes.

Death to the weakling,healthcare for the strong able bodied ones only....That *IS* what that statement you wrote proposed.

And it is the core of eugenics. This notion of who "deserves". Always it is selfish,rich, elitist snot balls who think they'll never get sick or hurt,thinking they will always be strong, live forever, helping nature along by culling the"weak" from the"herd".



The healthiness of a society is determined in how it treats the least among us.
But I guess you missed that memo..with that tripe you posted.

[Lost in CT]

25. So we as a people shouldn't use cost containment.

You can't afford to "cure" everybody. Instead of choosing by personal wealth and connections as we do now.

We should choose on science and quality of life considerations.

After a certain age our goal should be to make people comfortable not to needlessly prolong life a few months.

[undergroundpanther]

32. I agree with that

making people comfortable as they face the inevitable..BUT

Cost cutting can so easily become an excuse to let people die, to let people suffer,even healthy ones.Look at how even minor issues of heath disqualify already healthy people from getting help.If a child is born disabled and would be a higher cost to maintain should we kill it to save money?

My question is where do you draw the line?


My aunt died of pancreatic cancer. Maybe if she had access to the quality health care a supreme court justice has she might not be dead now, it might have been found early.Medicare and medicaid is not the same quality of care that is given to senators or justices you know.

If sick people in my family had been treated watched over as if they were as worthy of life and comfort as much as dick cheney is, maybe people in my family with health issues wouldn't have died or suffered until they did die.

How many heart bypasses,implants,heart replacements,pacemakers and other heart treatments did that asshole cheney get without question to save his miserable hide? How many times was cheney rescued from death's door,and his comfort so diligently watched over,in recovery .Who determines that he deserves that levbel; of care??Is HE worth more than you or I? I don't think so.

And why should cheney be chosen to be cared for by the best in this country over, my aunt or anyone else's mom or dad or kid's life? Who is it that places the price tags on all our heads?
Is a poor persons life worth less than a rich pampered Ceo's life?

[Lost in CT]

34. That is the current system... That is what we need to change. nt

[undergroundpanther]

39. And it is the WHO DESERVES

mentality of a blind bean counter that has gotten us here.

We need to offer care equally to all,and stop picking and choosing"who deserves".

None of us chose to be born into poor families none of us got to pick out the body we have.
So why should a society that aspires to be a good society tolerate such inhumane drivel as"who deserves"what level of care?
Take the price tag off of life.

[Lost in CT]

41. Youth will win over age. And one off treatments will win over chronic conditions.

That is the math.

Every other country in the world has to abide by those rules I don't know why we think we are so special.

[undergroundpanther]

46. It wasen't always that way.

Old people were once thought of as elders and had wisdom.They were valued members of the community.
Old people were not throwaways in cultures of 'productivity' as a god,that stirs up fears being unproductive.. fears like poverty,vulnerability,not having control,and death.
There is enough for all to have some.But none to have it all.

So you can value life even with it's ugly,and cherish relationships and community over money, and accept the unflattering reality we all are vulnerable and need each other.

Or you can rationalize a way to turn lives into units of production(biomedicalization) for profit for the rich to exploit..and throw away when they cannot make more in this mythos of growth without limits or consequences.
We can lie and cheat and keep getting face lifts and pretend the world is our oyster until as a species we are forced by the limits of physical reality itself, to change how we approach the value of life in all it's forms and stages.And throw away price tags and stop playing who deserves..

[Abq_Sarah]

84. If I could make one change in government

It would be to strip our government officials of their current taxpayer funded healthcare benefits and force them into Medicare. And by government officials, I mean everyone from the President on down. That would guarantee a speedy overhaul of the health care system.

[Lost in CT]

31. As long as a choice has to be made about how to spend medical resources

someone is not going to be happy.

The sad truth is we spend a disproportionate amount of our medical dollars on a small subset of people.

[ProudDad]

64. "a small subset of people"

Oh, you mean the leeches at the insurance companies? :shrug:

HR676 -- think about it!

[HamdenRice]

45. That's not the point at all. It's that we often spend more on the last 2 days than entire life

and basically all we do is extend the misery of the dying for a few hours because we are afraid to make choices.

In reality, doctors do a lot of letting patients go without telling the family because our system is so irrational.

A person may go their entire lives without adequate dental care, without controlling hypertension, and so on, and then we spend more than we've spent on that person their entire lives to keep their unconscious semi corpse alive for 48 hours.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Lost in CT]

76. Thank You... the defense of spending the money we do on end of life

care is bizzare... we should focus on the living not the near dead....

[burythehatchet]

17. The end-of-life dollars spent are obscene. But the answer is not caps or limits

but to as a society to make the decision to die gracefully, using the hospice model. The effort to prolong a life that is spiritually ended just because we can is something that we have to examine as a society.

[Delphinus]

19. Your solution sounds best.

We need to realize that death is a part of life!

[Lost in CT]

23. Thank You... That is what I was trying to say.

Which you said more tactfully.

[defendandprotect]

27. Again, we need to exercise individual CHOICE in these last days . . .

from cyanide tablets to letting others subject themselves to any treatment they want.

I'm confident that individuals would choose death rather than being a living veggie!

I would!!!

[burythehatchet]

30. Here agin, the fundies will do all they can to skew the debate and impose their law.

[defendandprotect]

36. Yes, but they've never won with an anti-choice argument yet . . .

[undergroundpanther]

42. our society is scared to death of death

Death is hidden from us,it is kept out of the way.Like old people are sequestered in hospice away from the families that might be embarassed or upset seeing what happens to a body that is declining.

Our culture fights age because it fears it,and it fears death too,so part of the cultural imperative to deny death is to prolong what is inevitable. And to deny the process of aging,by distaste,and hide it as much as possible from others.Those 'messy' parts of life like sickness,trauma,frailty,handicaps.America is saturated with the Fear of aging, Fear of Poverty, the Fear of Illness and the Fear of Death .A denial process so people can pretend and can tell themselves not me, I am INVULNERABLE..There are no LIMITS!!

But there ARE limits on our bodies and minds.Limits we did not choose to have but regardless they are there.
Which leads to the just world theory...a mentality that is so very toxic and unjust that enables so many horrors to be in this world.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/justworld.html
Than there is the toxic Biomedicalization of everything from mental heath to aging ..

Most recently a new public preoccupation with the physicality of ageing has emerged. The bodily signs of ageing seem to concern more and more people - and at increasingly younger ages. The lifestyle concerns of late modernity privilege appearance and social performance. Looking young, healthy and fit, mark out the signs of success.

A new focus on physical rather than social solutions to the problem of ageing is evident.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/4/4.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112409888/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


People who have never been hurt sometimes have difficulty understanding and being patient with people who have been hurt. It also occurs because people who have never confronted human tragedy are sometimes unable to comprehend the lives of those in occupations that involve dealing with human suffering or mass casualties on a daily basis.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/invuln.html

[Donnachaidh]

21. rw talking points anyone?

:eyes:

[Lost in CT]

24. I'm not sure the fact we spend to much on the last year of life or

chronic diseases is a RW talking point...

It's simply a fact.

[devilgrrl]

Yeah, uh huh, sure...

right... :eyes:

[Doctor_J]

50. The average person spend 80% if his/her health care $ in the last 3 years of life

The spending on worthless procedures at the end of life is staggering

[Psephos]

74. That's another way of saying rationing health care on the basis of who is cheapest to treat

As for the really sick, frail, old, or compromised: too bad.

Seems like the opposite of what progressivism is about.

[Lost in CT]

DUPE

[Lost in CT]

77. No it is about what is good for a society as a whole.

And society is better off spending its health care dollars on those that are still productive and still have time left.

[Psephos]

78. Implicit in that argument is the idea that a person's worth depends on their productivity

I hear that argument from conservatives sometimes, too.

Can't go there, sorry. I believe we each have an intrinsic value, apart from our productivity.

[Lost in CT]

79. 85 year olds with 3 months to live are taking more resources

than a hundred school age children that need preventive care.

That is what has to change.

[Psephos]

80. It's not a zero-sum game. n/t

[Lost in CT]

81. At some point it is... we only have so much money and resources.

WE need to have universal healthcare and you better believe that is a zero sum game.

[Psephos]

83. I agree that total resources are finite...but health care is currently 1/6th of GDP

The problem is not that we don't have enough resources to treat everyone at a good standard of care. It's that we don't have enough resources to treat everyone at a good standard of care, *and* also expand the amount we're spending on everything else.

So, I disagree with you that it's a zero-sum game. I can find $400 billion right this moment in the stimulus bill alone. Try it yourself, you'll see what I mean.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw

So it comes down to priorities. I have no problem arguing that each person has the same claim to a good standard of care, regardless of whether they're paying enough taxes or contributing enough social goods to meet some bureaucrat's edict. Even if it means we don't spend some of that other 5/6ths of GDP on wish-list items.

Once you abandon the idea that all people have instrinsic worthiness, regardless of their productivity contribution to "society at large," it's just another hop and a skip to Soylent Green. It's strange to have to point this out on a progressive board.

I wonder how you came to embrace the idea that "society at large" has a greater claim on an individual's life than the individual him- or herself. If people who think that way are to end up in charge of deciding who gets health care, then I would work hard to keep it out of government control.

We're talking about a serious reform of health care in the US. How will the public react to the idea that we must all surrender private control over our health care to the government, and only then find out who among us will be set aside as undeserving of treatment? They will march in the streets against it. As they should. I would join them.

Food for thought: progressives argue that a woman's reproductive health is a private matter between her and her doctor. How can that be reconciled with the argument that an elderly person's geriatric health is a public matter to be decided by a government functionary? Following your line of thought would lead to powerful attacks on the implicit privacy arguments that underlie RvW.

Ok, I'm spent on this topic now. Best wishes.

[Festivito]

6. $8160 per capita US. And still we have what? 40-million UNinsured.

And those 40 million are included in this number. DISGUSTING.

Canada did it for 3000 per capita while we were just going over 6000. And they love their system and think that we think we love their system too.

Ha! We're still dealing with reports of a long ago flu epidemic in Canada that filled their ER rooms ONCE. That's all we got after ten years of such a left-wing press(Yeah, right :sarcasm:).

[SharonAnn]

12. So, it's 40 million uninsured and 260 million insured, over $9,000 per insured.

The rest can just "do without".

[Festivito]

43. About $9,500 per insured. More as a single -- many family plans.

It's ridiculous. $4.75 per hour, and you can't buy that.

$1,000/month, $12,000/year, That's $6.00 per hour, that's higher than minimum wage! And, that assumes you get 10 holidays, Christmas, New Years, Fourth, Labor day, Memorial day, and ONE week of vacation. Better not get sick. Just pay the premium.

The other poster suggested 48M w/o health care out of 306M Americans. Just under 9500. I'm betting with the cost of health care so high, that the estimation factor should be higher. Unemployed people are dropping health care at a higher rate now.

[Delphinus]

20. No, you're at least 8 million (plus) shy.

A Kaiser Family Institute study just came out that showed for every 1% rise in unemployment, you're talking 1,000,000 (one million) more people.

[Doctor_J]

52. It was 41 million when Smirk moved inot the WH. Now it's about 50 million

[KansDem]

7. At that price you'd think you'd hear something besides, "Need your insurance card, ID, and copay"

...as the first three things uttered when you walk into the Dr.s office.

Used to be you'd get a smile and an acknowledgment of your worth as a person...

[biopowertoday]

13. NYT: Health Care Industry in [SECRET**] Talks to Shape Policy

NOT soon--nor later. have you seen this?


edit to ad link



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20health.html?_r=1&ref=health&pagewanted=print


February 20, 2009
Health Care Industry in Talks to Shape Policy
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Since last fall, many of the leading figures in the nation’s long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room. Now, with the blessing of the Senate’s leading proponent of universal health insurance, Edward M. Kennedy, they appear to be inching toward a consensus that could reshape the debate.

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.

.........
The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.

.................

While President Obama is not directly represented in the talks, the White House has been kept informed and is encouraging the Senate effort as a way to get the ball rolling on health legislation.

...............

“While there was some diversity of views,” it said, “the sense of the room is that an individual obligation to purchase insurance should be part of reform if that obligation is coupled with effective mechanisms to make coverage meaningful and affordable.”

The ideas discussed include a proposal to penalize people who fail to comply with the “individual obligation” to have insurance.

......................................

The 20 people who regularly attend the meetings on Capitol Hill include lobbyists for AARP, Aetna, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, Easter Seals, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.

[SOS]

8. Compare these two nations

US
Spending: $8,000/person/year
Life expectancy: 78.02 years

Sweden
Spending: $2,745/person/year
Life expectancy: 80.63 years

[saigon68]

9. Doctors in Sweden don't make millions per year

[Mojorabbit]

18. Neither do most US doctors. nt

[Festivito]

44. And, how many Swedish doctors do you see over here? NONE!

I used to have one, in the 1950's!

All you see are third world country escapees.

How many Canadian doctors do you see here? I see none now. Used to have one. Don't see any of them any more.

[saigon68]

68. Yes India and Pakistan come to mind

[Hannah Bell]

55. more to the point: health care corporations in sweden don't make billions per year,

nor do their execs.

[primavera]

60. Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!!

:applause:

[prolesunited]

10. But, but, but...

We have the best medical care in the country. :eyes:

For another shocker, check out the comparisons in infant mortality rates.

[dflprincess]

22. That's what happens when you live in a Socialist hell hole like Sweden.

:sarcasm:

[Festivito]

47. Where my cousin can make millions in IT and have a pony.

Literally, his daughter had her own pony. He makes millions. He pays taxes, but has enough to vacation in style many times a year. He gets tax breaks for doing things that help his country. It works. He and his workers are protected. He doesn't have to worry about which health care package is going to screw him and his workers the least.

He didn't start rich, but he is now. Sure, mom and dad had a nice house and summer home and lived well. It seems to me what America should be. They're living it. IN SWEDEN!

[Doctor_J]

53. Here's the difference

Swedish citizen: $2,745
Private insurance company profit: $1,500
Drug company profit: $1,500
Insurance company claim rejectors: $1,000
Doctor's private jet: $ 750
Dr's extra staff to try to collect from insurance company: $ 505
______
Total: $8,000

[dflprincess]

57. My doctor does not have a private jet

however, William McGuire, M.D., former head of UnitedHealth Group had access to the corporate jet.

The average internist or family practioner is making a good living but they're not making millions (and the younger ones are paying off student loans an expense doctors in many other countries don't have). The only doctors making really obscene big bucks are the ones who have stopped practicing medicine and sold their souls to a health insureance company.

[ProudDad]

65. That's the other thing that should be "Single-Payer"

and Universal.

Education. Should be covered for every worthy student through graduate/medical school.

Like the country with the BEST health care in the world does it -- In France a University education is "free" -- paid by the community as a community good.

[Sgent]

73. Primary care doctors

make about 30-40% more in the UK than they do here, and they don't have loans.

[undergroundpanther]

14. * 's humongous give aways

of the national treasury to the banks and his criminal buddies has been I think,an attempt to restrict via the purse how much Obama can do for the health care crisis.Nothing like the misery of sickness or the impeding threat of death to get people to accept a life of debt slavery.


The neocons are psychopaths.They wanted to create a new feudal system,impose it on us,and put themselves as kings and overlords.
And so they looted the treasury, like the selfish,destructive,bully boy,criminal, childish psychopathic club of losers they are.

[defendandprotect]

26. As I recall it, that would provide a Switzerland type LUXURY health care system . .!!!

I think that more than Switzerland pays per citizen --

PLUS, why aren't the GOP Governors taking up the health care issue --

costs are a heavy load for every state!

[defendandprotect]

28. More socialism . . . less privatization . . . down with capitalism and corporatism . .. !!!

[Vinca]

29. If you subtracted the insurance company obscene profits, it would be about $2,000. nt

[Doctor_J]

51. Profits would shave off about $2,000. The bureaucrats who reject claims

for a living would be another grand. Doctors' office assistants who spend their lives pleading for payment from the bureaucrats is another 500. Drug company profits are another grand.

[fascisthunter]

33. How Much Cheaper would Socialized Healthcare Be?

anyone have any numbers?

[harun]

38. I think > 50% savings

Says triple here:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

[fascisthunter]

40. awesome... THANK YOU!

[One_Life_To_Give]

85. $700 per person or 9% savings

Administrative costs at your link are $1000 per person US vs. $300 in Canada for a savings of $700 per person. Against an $8000 per person annual medical expense that is roughly 9% savings.

[Cleita]

37. As long as a bunch of MBA's are making money off of health care from

insurance, HMO's and PhRMA, it will be twice as expensive as it needs to me. Most countries with single payer universal health care can deliver quality health care for half or even less what it costs in this country because they have mostly cut off the parasitic, for profit, middle men out of their system. Like in Canada, insurers can sell insurance for extras, not main stream basic care, to the fools who wish to pay for it.

[primavera]

61. Well said! - n/t

[Doctor_J]

49. Somewhere between $1600-$2000 of that is insurance company profit

They are, literally, bloodsuckers

[sarcasmo]

56. This Country is Fucked.

[ProudDad]

62. HR676 - Single Payer Health Care for all

Anything less that cutting the god damn "insurance" companies out of the equation and following the rest of the industrialized world into a Single-Payer, Universal system

Is...

Insane...

And...

Won't...

Work!

-----------------------

Also...

Since the only real necessities of life are connection to a community, food, shelter, clothing (when it's cold) and lately, adequate health care...

Why the hell...

Worry about "costs"...

If the leeches in the insurance industry and their toadies in the state and federal governments are removed from the equation the only "costs" will be direct employment for real health care providers and a small group of administrators (about 3-5 percent)...

HR676...the only way!!!

[ProudDad]

63. Bogus!

"As the recession cuts into tax receipts, Medicare's giant hospital trust fund is running out of cash more rapidly, and could become insolvent as early as 2016, the report said. That's three years sooner than previously forecast."

That's because Medicare is ALSO forced to subsidize the insurance company leeches -- thanks mainly to repuke legislation, signed by bush the lesser, that eviscerated one of the most accepted government programs ever...in order to discredit the idea of Government (We the People - self financed) Health Care for ALL

HR676 -- call your congresscritters and DEMAND that they get on board...

[superconnected]

67. I agree. This article is bogus.

I've seen quite a few bogus ones today. Some just read like republican commercials... like this one:

http://www.komonews.com/news/national/40262592.html

[mmonk]

69. So funny if not sad. The current way we do health care is the freakin problem.

[melm00se]

70. it's the whole system

not just pharma and the insurance companies but also the doctors, the lawyers, the hospitals, and the patients.

the whole system will have to be re-worked from the top to bottom for it to work and work efficiently and effectively not just now but 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now.