Why I am OPPOSED to 'Affordable Health Care'

[Stinky The Clown]

I am opposed to 'affordable health care' because in the United States, the richest and most advanced nation on earth, every one of our citizens ahs the absolute right to health care. It should not be 'affordable'.

It should be FREE.

Free at the time of service.

Single Payer.

Paid for the citizens of these United States through their taxes.

Disband the for-profit system. Redirect the former employees of the insurance business to the new health care provider.

FREE

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

NOW

[barbaraann]

1. Exactly!

And I am not going to work for any candidate at any level who supports "affordable health care." My litmus test is universal health care. Period.

[flpoljunkie]

69. Free health care is a right in the new Iraq constitution, but not for US!

Article (30): 1st The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life for the individual and the family especially children and women and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2973485

[elehhhhna]

2. This is one issue where we and Business' interests truly converge.

[mrfocus]

3. The REAL Cost of Healthcare

Number one reason to declare personal bankruptcy:
Catastrophic health care expenses

Number one reason for family farm bankruptcy:
Catastrophic health care expenses

Number one reason for manufacturing jobs leaving the US:
Catastrophic health insurance expenses

Solution: Single Payer System (hey, it works pretty well for other community things, like fire fighting and policing)

But, noooooooo, the regressive righties with their pseudo 'culture of life' will never agree to something that would help 45 million Americans immediately and benefit EVERYBODY in the short to medium term. They are too deep in the pockets of the health care oligolopoly.

And as to the garbage about 'long wait lists in countries with single payer systems'...well, the wait list in the US for people without health insurance is really short: you dont't get treatment. Try getting on a transplant list or a chemotherapy program without insurance. Sorry, you gotta die first on be totally indigent before that will happen.

[Lost-in-FL]

8. My 2-cents

I think you are right about health care and something has to be done. I work in the healthcare business (yes, it is a business and a very profitable one I must say). If healthcare turns affordable or even free, most healthcare workers pay will be reduce sustancially and those are the paramedicts, nurses and medical technologists that bust their asses everyday and even working overtime. The problem with healthcare is that 60% of all medical expenses goes to the prevention of lawsuits and the purshase of very uneccessary equipment (Why would you want a sonogram to see your baby on 3D???). Paramedics, nurses, and other healthcare workers have little to say in healthcare. Doctors and politicians create bills to suit their needs. Medical Equipment companies seduce doctors with equipment that at times is completely unnecessary. They order all kids of useless examinations not becusea they are afraid of lawsuits like W want all to believe but becuase they want a new set of golf clubs cortesy of you favorite Medical or Pharmaceutical companies. Doctors are the one lobbying in congress so you and I do not get free healthcare.

[JPK]

18. My 2 cents.......on your 2 cents......

I was on an interview a few years ago with the the head of the florida med asoc. and off camera he said it wasn't law suits driving up insurance costs, it was the stock market. Their investments were losing money in the crappy stock market so the rates go up. Law suits and their awards had gone down in the state for the previous five years and yet the rates being charged were going up in double digit amounts every year. The whole anti trial lawyer media campaign blaming them for the rises in heathcare cost was smoke and mirrors and people bought into it. The bad thing about nationalizing the health care system will be if the government farms out the administration of it to the individual states or current health care insurance companies. They will rape the system, and us, like it's never been raped before. That's why there would need to be a department of national health created to handle every aspect of the plan, otherwise we will lose again.

[knitter4democracy]

99. Not all doctors--please don't generalize.

My husband's an internist, and he's for a national health care system. He's not creating bills to suit his needs or pay for golf clubs (I saved up for his set on sale, thank you very much ;) ).

The "useless" tests often are to cover their asses in case of lawsuits (heck, that's how my husband was trained). If it can be proved that they missed something because of not doing some test and the patient suffered harm, all heck breaks loose. Those tests also uncover things that come as a suprise often enough that doctors order them to be safe.

The office my husband works in (he's still staff and not partner or partner-track) doesn't have the latest and greatest machines, and I know few docs around here who do. Their overhead is high enough as it is, and they just can't afford it. His office has an X-Ray machine and a basic lab, and that's mostly for patient convenience and so the doctors get the results back more quickly.

Nurses should have more say in healthcare, and good doctors listen to them. My husband put himself through college as a nurse's aid in nursing homes for six years (started in high school to save up), and he knows how to respect and treat his support staff. I've run into many nurses in town who love working with him and say that he respects them and treats them as equals.

Yes, there are doctors against free healthcare, and they fear it because it will hit them in the pocketbooks. That's very true. There are also doctors fighting for it and working on all their colleagues every day. More and more doctors are going without insurance of any kind, and more and more are starting to look at how those docs are doing. More and more pieces are getting written in the journals for a good national health care system, and doctors are reading those and starting to see the light.

Please don't paint all doctors with a broad brush. You'd be suprised how many are Dems. ;)

[blondeatlast]

28. Welcome to DU! The US doesn't have a triage method, it has a

"quad"rage method:

First; those who are in very critical, have health insurance and will survive with proper treatment;

Second; those who are not critical but need care ASAP and have health insurance and will survive even if they must wait;

Third; those who are going to die regardless, but have health insurance (palliative care);

Fourth, those who don't have health insurance, period.

It's sick, but sadly true. As a longtime insulin dependent diabetic, I've seen enough emergency rooms to have figured out this "quadrage" method and seen it in use.

[burythehatchet]

43. That's not even the half of it

Workers Compensation Medical Expenses

Medical Malpractice (medical component)

Massive shift away from emergency medicine towards preventive medicine.

Healthier labor force - more productive

Healthier children - more education


it goes on and on

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. and wellness care

I'm really for the practice of holistic medicine. That's where the docs keep you well by checking you out and prescribing the most healthy diet/exercise program for you as an individual. By only addressing acute and chronic illness, we tend to fall into the trap of having to use the drug company's products. A lot of the time, other things, such as herbs and vitamins, can be used and tend to be much cheaper than drugs.

[Nite Owl]

5. I just don't understand the

lack of outrage over our 'system'. Why aren't people up in arms over this, it's a matter of life and death. No way should health care be connected to work. It's just wrong. It forces talented people to work for nothing so that they can get a mimimal plan. You get sick, lose the job for being out of work and have no healthcare when you need it most. Single payer would be cheaper, fairer and it would increase the growth of the economy by encouraging small businesses to flourish and creativity to flourish.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Amen. Universal Health Care is GOOD FOR BUSINESS AND THE PEOPLE

Period.

[DBoon]

11. It makes employees risk averse

and that is the antithesis of what capitalism is about.

Employees should be encouraged to seek the best possible job and not to stay in their current unsatisfactory position just over worries about health care coverage

Employees of an entrepeneurial bent should be able to follow their dream without having to carry a health care albatross around their neck

Support true capitalism! Free healthcare for everyone!

[AbbyR]

95. The outrage isn't there because...

most folks think that this is the way it's supposed to be.

Even the insured have problems - for example, I'm waiting now to go to the doctor for a sinus infection - can't afford my co payment.

[whistle]

6. That sounds like.....A PLANNED ECONOMY...and we all know...

...what that represents :hide: ....socialism....or worse.....the Big "C"....:wow:....:woohoo:


I with you on making it free along will lowered housing costs, guaranteed worker job protection, free public education pre-K thru college and everyone 18 or older the right to vote (no voting list purges, registration screening, voting machine blocks, etc.) fascist methods to deprive groups of people their voting rights. That's minimal freedom protection for working Americans.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Good article in this week's New Yorker

"The Moral-Hazard Myth"
by Malcolm Gladwell

One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in the past century—during the First World War, during the Depression, during the Truman and Johnson Administrations, in the Senate in the nineteen-seventies, and during the Clinton years—efforts have been made to introduce some kind of universal health insurance, and each time the efforts have been rejected. Instead, the United States has opted for a makeshift system of increasing complexity and dysfunction. Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries...

Policy is driven by more than politics, however. It is equally driven by ideas, and in the past few decades a particular idea has taken hold among prominent American economists which has also been a powerful impediment to the expansion of health insurance. The idea is known as “moral hazard...”

“Moral hazard” is the term economists use to describe the fact that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured. If your office gives you and your co-workers all the free Pepsi you want—if your employer, in effect, offers universal Pepsi insurance—you’ll drink more Pepsi than you would have otherwise. If you have a no-deductible fire-insurance policy, you may be a little less diligent in clearing the brush away from your house. The savings-and-loan crisis of the nineteen-eighties was created, in large part, by the fact that the federal government insured savings deposits of up to a hundred thousand dollars, and so the newly deregulated S. & L.s made far riskier investments than they would have otherwise. Insurance can have the paradoxical effect of producing risky and wasteful behavior. Economists spend a great deal of time thinking about such moral hazard for good reason. Insurance is an attempt to make human life safer and more secure. But, if those efforts can backfire and produce riskier behavior, providing insurance becomes a much more complicated and problematic endeavor...

The moral-hazard argument makes sense, however, only if we consume health care in the same way that we consume other consumer goods, and to economists like Nyman this assumption is plainly absurd. We go to the doctor grudgingly, only because we’re sick. “Moral hazard is overblown,” the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. “You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”

Long discussion of the backfire of moral hazard (people avoiding doctors for routine checkups because of the cost) and why the administration Health Savings Accounts are just another bad idea and a movement away from universal health care

[mike_c]

10. I agree with you 100 percent....

If Cuba can do it-- an impoverished Caribbean republic struggling under a decades long U.S. economic embargo-- why can't the richest nation in the hemisphere do it? The answer: we can, but refuse to put social justice before the profits of corporations that benefit from the desperation and misery of the sick and dying.

[1932]

14. See my post below for some insight into why Cuba can take care of its

citizens' health.

No doubt, the absense of a consumer culture and huge disparities in income contribute to all the social factors which make Cubans more healthy.

[mike_c]

15. excellent point....

eom

[1932]

12. I just read in the book The Health of Nations:

With only about 4% of the global population, the US spends half of all the money spent on health care around the world, yet we rank at the bottom of the 20 or so wealthiest nations in terms of just about every measure of health.

The book argues that the extreme polarization of wealth in the US is one of the biggest contributors to bad health.

So, hey, let's kill two birds with one stone. Let's progressively tax high levels of income (especially from capital gains and dividend income) and let's use that money to give everyone good health care, and not only will we help a lot of people in misery in the short term, we'll have many fewer sick people in the long term thanks to the fact that we've made more equitable the distribution of wealth.

Incidentally, the book argues that some of the big contributors to bad health caused by poverty are that people have to work longer hours to keep up with Joneses and that's cutting into people spending time being social and civic and carring about each other and looking after each other and enganging in activities that aren't physically and psychologically destructive.

They cite a study of Reseto, Pennsylvania to support this argument that is very interesting reading.

Resoto was a town populated by Italian immigrants who maintained a level of communality that was unusual. Membership in civic organizations and a bunch of other indicators of having free time, having close ties to others, etc, were much higher than anywhere else in the country. They also had much better health. As those indicators decreased, their health got worse.

[eridani]

35. They were also fat, and their diets used were about 50% fat

Prosciutto ham and olive oil, mainly. Heart attacks about 1/2 the national incidence in the 60s. Rosetans have gotten Americanized, obsessed about dieting and being skinny, and now they have the same number of heart attacks as anyone else.

[1932]

46. And it all comes down to break down of social groups, consumer culture and

increasing polarizations of wealth.

[gulliver]

13. There should be free basic health care with optional gap ...

... coverage also provided by the single payer (the government).

Americans need health security, they need it easy, and they need to be guaranteed that they can use their wealth to get better care if necessary. The single payer should not only pay U.S. providers but should span the globe for so-called "medical tourism" options.

Would Americans like to never have to hear the term co-pay again? How about no more having to fill out insurance forms and insurance coverage blanks in every other kid form parents have to fill out? How about no more worries about COBRA in divorce, the health of a company's retirement plan while in retirement...?

Universal health care. Ease, simplicity, guaranteed basic benefits, guaranteed preventative health care, guaranteed catastrophic health care, guaranteed access to customized service.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Amen! And ditto for cradle to grave education. Can you imagine the

difference in life quality we would all have if had health care and educations and no freaking student loans to pay bay for 15 years?! Most folks would finally be able to afford things like, dare I say it, a house of their own.

Signed, still paying off student loans and living in a trailer

[Totally Committed]

17. Why, you cute little Socialist, you!

I totally agree with you on the socialization of healthcare in this country.

FREE

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

NOW

Hubby -- :yourock:

TC

[tx_dem41]

19. So the government will hike taxes astronomically on (in the best

case), lower middle, middle, and upper class. Which, of course, means it isn't free.

[tkmorris]

27. I'm sure everyone here understands that

However it WOULD be cheaper. Furthermore it would be excellent for business since it removes the financial burden from business owners.

But you know this already.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. We ALREADY pay for universal health care

but in a hodge podge way. And seeing some significant percentage of our citizens using the emergency rooms to get cold meds does nothing but drive up costs.

Get rid of all the bullshit ..... create a single source for health care available to everyone ... place the burden fairly on everyone ... as a progressive taxation system, and be done with it.

Redeploy laid off insurance company workers into the health care system and save their jobs. What gets cut out is the profit motive. And health care profits are currently huge.

[blondeatlast]

33. We already pay for the ininsured at government run hospitals. If you arent

aware of that fact already, you need to inform yourself a bit before going off on the tax TP.

If the people who show up at the county ER where my sister works every evening had basic care, they wouldn't have to cost us thousands when they come in with killer flu and infections requiring amputation.

It's just dumb management, IMHO.

[eridani]

36. Not at all. Not if we close down private insurance--

--and use the proceeds to actually provide health care. "We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it." --Dennis Kucinich.

[knitter4democracy]

100. There are ways to help with that.

The first step would be to make one claim form. We spend billions every year on all the different insurance company forms--you'd be suprised how much of a doctor's overhead is paperwork. That will cut costs across the board.

The next step would be to raise business taxes, which business should be for, as it's a definite, budgetable expense, as opposed to skyrocketing insurance rates with no warning. Business should be for that, and many of our multinationals are when it's in other countries.

The last step would be to raise taxes in a progressive manner, starting with the wealthiest, getting their tax levels back to where they were even ten years ago.

It can work if we plan it well. The infrastructure is mostly in place, so we'd just need an administration for it (don't trust the companies to run it at all) and a transfer of power and money.

[SemperEadem]

20. exactly

to me, if you call yourself 'pro life', then you should also be for universal health care, the premise of 'pro life' being that all people have this 'right to life'... or is that just fetuses and folks in persistent vegetative states or suffering from insurmountable, unrelenting pain?

[Dora]

21. It's a sad day that health maintenance has become a luxury. n/t

[Vinca]

22. Basic health care should be every much a right as an education.

I'm so tired of worrying every day that something will happen I can't pay to fix.

[SharonAnn]

25. So, we'll get rid of public education and make that statement true!

[Stinky The Clown]

30. I'd love to carry this to its logical conclusion

which is a 'minimum standard of living' ...... encompassing not only health care, but housing, nutrition, education, senior care (free government sponsored pensions), and so forth.

Keep doing this until the least of our citizens is as **at least** as well off as the best of the worst in the rest of the world.

[blondeatlast]

32. I thought I was alone in this philosophy. I've believed for many years

(handed down from my father) that a citizen deserves at least a minimum of a livable shelter, an education, and health care.

If everyone has this, I begrudge no one their riches honestly gained.

I'm surrounded by homeless in my job and it breaks my heart that cities offer dozens of billions in tax cuts to Wal-Mart, but can't provide bare bones public showers in 110 degree heat.

I try not to think about it too much, mustn't allow head to explode.

[Robeson]

23. I couldn't agree more!

[blondeatlast]

24. Amen, my brother. If everyone has care, the risk pool is diluted

to infinity.

Couldn't be simpler.

[applegrove]

26. Why you would not want 'shared risk of illness' shared over the

generation..especially as the boomers retire & age..I do not know.

[kath]

31. yes - eliminate the #&$^@#! bloodsucking insurance companies.

[bluestateguy]

34. I favor single payer too

But let's not lie to people and say that it's "free". It isn't, any more than Social Security is not free. We all pay for it through payroll taxes and spread the burden equally, as it should be.

[AtomicKitten]

37. apparently "christians" oppose free health care

I have had more than a few emails circulate to me with some sort of "christian credo" that health care is not a right. I've noticed a tremendous amount of resentment towards the poor. With the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle class becoming extinct, caring for the poor will most certainly fall through the cracks. Now Emergency Departments are simply stabilizing fractures and sending people out for treatment by orthopedic doctors so they don't get stiffed with their care.

[WilliamCash]

38. Why not free everything?

Hi all. First post here. Long-time reader of DU. Probably not the best time to start posting, but I just had to comment on this notion of free health care. We need a massive amount of reform in the healthcare industry. I'm an attorney and represent doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice cases, so I get behind-the-scenes views of the business end of patient care. It ain't pretty a lot of the time. What doctors tell their attorney behind closed doors would shock people. But the answer isn't to just say healthcare is free. First off, nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it somewhere. Second, if health care is a right, why isn't heating oil? Food? Warm clothing? Housing? After all, we need all of those things to stay alive too. Why shouldn't the government pay for all of that too? It's just too slippery a slope.

Don't mean to be negative. I don't have the magic answer to the problem.

[mikelewis]

39. I agree to a certain extent...

I don't believe all health care should be free. That, to me, seems to be asking for abuse from the citizens and the system. What I do think should be offered is catastrophic health care coverage to every citizen of the U.S. I also believe there needs to be a national Health Insurance program that is open to everyone and based on realistic rates. I also believe all children should have free and total health care coverage.

Welcome to DU

[Bridget Burke]

41. The very poorest have some access to "catastrophic" care....

There are treatment programss for the truly indigent. Far too few, but they exist.

But people who can't afford regular medical visits & routine tests often don't get treatment in time. In cancer, for example, early diagnosis & treatment is key. What if you can't afford a mammogram or a pap test?

What kind of "abuse" do your foresee? Mammograms for fun? (Ouch!)

[mikelewis]

82. Actually the poorest have access to Medicaid so they are covered...

for a wide range of medical services including medical, dental and vision. It's not just the poorest either, millions of people are on state sponsored medical programs.

The problem isn't the patients rushing into get unecessary procedures, the problems are with the doctors and hospitals scheduling and billing unnecessary procedures. This happened so often that it has nearly bankrupted many state medicaid programs. Once the doctors started to abuse the system, the system begin to set more and more regulations on which procedures are required and when. Now it has come to the point that doctors don't want to participate in the program because it's such a pain in the ass. The medicaid program is what everyone thinks of when you talk about comprehensive health care. It starts out with great intentions but ultimately, human nature slipped into the mix and we have a mess.

The system can work but it's going to take a lot of effort and some hard changes. It's going to take some legislation and regulation. Our politicians are going to have to betray those who bought them into power to get this done but it's essential that they do it. By regulating health care costs and that includes clamping down on insurance companies who are raping the doctors, developing higher standards for doctors and health care providers, capping medical malpractice lawyers fees, reducing prescription costs and making health care decisions a quasi-financial decision in those who are able to pay, we can have a system that balances itself out without bankrupting the nation and still provides outstanding and prompt care. I say its a quasi-financial since this should not be the only thing to determine if a checkup is needed. Paying for a $40 office visit or a $80 test will cut down on abuse, not by stopping the consumer from consuming but by stopping the providers from abusing the "free" system. For seniors, those who can't afford it and for every child, the cost should be free. For all of us working stiffs, we should be able to pay for this service. We should have access to affordable health care.

[blondeatlast]

47. Know anyone with a chronic ailment? That'll change your mind

if you have to pay for the copays, deductibles, and equipment insurance doesn't cover.

I have pretty good insuarance, and my tax deductible expenses amounted to FOUR THOUSAND dollars last year.

[mikelewis]

83. A chronic ailment would be considered a catastrophic medical cost...

Unless your condition isn't very serious in which case an affordable health care system could reduce your costs considerably. Paying $4,000 is unnecessary. But paying $1000 while definitely not desirable is fair. The OP claims that we have a right to free health care but we don't. We weren't endowed by our creator with the right to free health care, we were endowed with the right to life. Part of life is getting others to do what you want or need them to do. Paying them is a pretty effective way of doing that.

[ret5hd]

49. is there much abuse of "free" fire dep't service?...

or "free" police dep't service?

if there is, maybe we should consider making these services a "pay as you use them" service also.

some things aren't abused because people don't WANT to use them in the first place...you use them because you HAVE to. And i think the idea of people getting a "recreational" mastectomy or hip replacement or pacemaker is as ludicrous as i am sure you do.

[blondeatlast]

52. Good point; wish I'd thought of that! Abuse of the water department?

Abuse of public education? Abuse of public libraries?

Excellent point!

[ret5hd]

54. i can't take credit for the idea...

there was a fairly lengthy article that laid this line of thinking out in quite a lot of detail. Someone (i would guess about a year ago) posted a link to it here on DU. It got a good number of responses, so i hope someone who was more dilligent with their bookmarks might post a new link to it.

[mikelewis]

87. Actually, there is belive it or not...

in one such area is alarm systems. Home and commercial security systems sometime generate false alarms which ivariably costs time and money, both of these are precious to the police and fire department. In many cities, the local gov. requires you to purchase a license to offset the additional cost and other charge a fee for false calls over a certain number. It's also a crime to abuse the police and fire service. If you prank the police station and get them to respond to a fake situation, if they catch you, you get fined and could get jailed if you did it enough.

Also, those procedures would be considered catastrophic so they would be covered.

[Bridget Burke]

40. Other countries have "free" health care.

Yes, taxpayers actually pay for it. But how many of our tax dollars are currently flushed down the toilets of the Military Industrial Complex. What about the taxcuts for the rich?

We already subsidize some food, housing, etc., for those who need these necessities. What about government programs for affordable housing? Not "giveaways"--just assurances that cheap, decent places to live are available.

Taxpayers, "the government"? Ever hear the phrase "we, the people."

[Stinky The Clown]

45. It isn't 'free'

it is paid by taxes.

What this does is dismantle the insurance industry and spread the risk pool.

[blondeatlast]

48. Yes, but the docs and insurance companies can afford your services.

Victims of malpractice (I lost sight in one eye due to a doc long past his prime), can't.

The doc who ruined my eye is still practicing.

Of course there are attorneys who would have represented me, but they arent' the caliber of your practice, I guarantee it.

Sorry, bno sympathy for the poor docs here. I'm an insulin dependent diabetic from the age of 7 and spend approximately 16% of my income on health care--WITH INSURANCE.

I can see your side--can you POSSIBLY see mine? Think about it for a few minutes--I challenge you.

[WilliamCash]

60. sorry

I am sorry for your injury. Believe me, I mean no disrespect to victims of medical malpractice. I see plenty of people who have been wronged, and they deserve compensation. And I know there are some doctors out there who are just plain incompetent and who should not be practicing. But I'm not sure how your story relates to the notion of universal health care.

[blondeatlast]

62. Well, let me try to answer. I think a bare minimum of shelter and

sustenence should be a right, and I'm getting taken to task downthread for it.

why shouldn't justice be the privilege of the poor as well?

I didn't sue the doctor because it would have meant enormous costs for me, but the doc had an attorney on retainer, of course.

I'm not anywhere near poor, but again, it's the two-tier society we see with health care.

Sorry, I did let off some steam with you, as you can imagine, it's a seriously sore point with me.

Welcome to DU; let me try to make it up to you: :toast:!

[burythehatchet]

110. Because the current system is far more expensive.

and by focusing on the term "free" you're creating a straw man.

[momisold]

42. And this will be paid how?

The US can't pay for programs we have in place now. Where is the money coming from?

I'm not against what you saying. I just don't know how practical it is.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. It would be paid by taxes ... offset by no more insurance premiums

In essence it spreads the risk pool.

We start by repealing those tax cuts to rich ... and then increase the taxes on high earners. Next, we clean up DoD waste.

I know those sound simplistic, but they're really not simple at all.

But in concept, that's where the dollars come from.

[blondeatlast]

50. Diluting the risk pool is incredibly cost-efficient.

With universal care, the risk coefficient hovers at decimal point percentages; not to mention the added benefit of timely care (diagnosis and treatment started early can prevent catastrophic illness in the long run.)

Either way, we pay for it, but private health insurance is NOT cost-efficient by any stretch of the imagination.

[Bridget Burke]

51. How much are we paying for Iraq?

And how many tax cuts for the rich has Bush enacted?

[Telly Savalas]

53. Every other Western industrialized nation can afford to do it.

Are we not as good as they are?

[Lars39]

71. By next year US military spending will equal the other countries combined.

That is where all the money for social programs are going.

[burythehatchet]

109. UNiversal health care is far less expensive than the current system

30% of expenditures in private insurance go towards profit and administration. The government could do it for 2 to 3%, just like social security. This is also the reason for privatizing social security.

[Nederland]

55. Question

If health care should be free, do you also believe that the other necessities of life (food clothing and shelter) should be free?

BTW by "free", I mean paid for by taxes.

[blondeatlast]

56. Yes, I do.

Anyone should have access to indoor shelter and plumbing, even if it's a cot in a shelter.

Everyone ought to get even a minimal meal 3x a day.

Everyone ought to be able to have a couple of pair of jeans, a few t-shirts, clean socks and shoes.

We do this for convicted criminals, who are also given health care; I see no reason we can't for the poorest of the poor.

Edit: My taxes pay for a hell of a lot of crap I disagree with; those who don't give a damn can suck it up once in a while, too.

[Nederland]

57. Ok, one more question

You have now assembled a long list of things that government is responsible for doing. Here's the question: what responsibilities do citizens have?

[blondeatlast]

58. You assume that if all these things are offered, there is no incentive.

I call bullshit. Of course there will be PLENTY of incentive to get out of the situation.

First of all, look at the convicted criminal example. If there's no incentive there, the US prison system has failed on a grand scale.

Second, I'm talking an absolute minimum; something on the nature of government run shelters and clinics. Not someplace you want to make your home, but a safety net (think of those who will be devastated by Katrina, for instance).

For thiose unemployed, maintenence of the facility to keep them occupied and support the facility.

A safe place, a stable sustenance, but not something one wants to make permanent by any means.

Remember--you said ONE more question.

[Nederland]

59. You didn't answer the question

What responsibilities do citizens have?

[blondeatlast]

61. To become taxpayers. What is your answer?

I'm not in favor of ALLOWING people to be poor, but having been there myself--and in need of lots of medical care, I have a perspective much different than most.

I've needed lifetime medical care; I also pay a great deal in taxes (my family sure isn't poor bby any stretch now).

I don't mind contributing to those who have fallen on hard times.

What's YOUR answer to the question you asked? I took the bait, now YOU eat it.

[Nederland]

63. Simple

I believe that people have a responsiblity to obey the law and provide for themselves and those that they have voluntarily chosen to support.

[blondeatlast]

64. So we must agree to disagree. Do you pay for health insurance at your

employer, I'm curious?

[Nederland]

65. Yes

My health benefits are part of my total compensation package. I pay extra for my wife and daughter.

[blondeatlast]

66. I assume that you understand risk pools then. I will carry this no further

Gotta love the free exchange of ideas.

Edit--okay, gotta say it.

Thanks for the shiny new insulin pump!

[Nederland]

68. Fair enough

I'll leave you with one final explanation.

I believe that a key cause of many problems in the world today is when the true costs of things are hidden or obscured from people. Economic efficiency is best obtained when people have a clear view of how much something costs, because that way they can accurately gauge whether or not a good or service is "worth it".

For example, if every American citizen recieved a bill every month to cover their portion of the costs of the Iraq war, we'd be out of there in a matter of weeks. Likewise, if I actually knew how much money it costed to provide health insurance for me and my family I'd be much more concerned about how the money was being spent. I'm almost certain that I would make different choices than my employer has made on my behalf. However, as it is now I don't really know how much its really costing (and more importantly, I don't have much of a choice) and so I don't think about it much.

This is why I don't like the idea of single payer health care. I can't see why things will become better when you completely obscure the true costs of health care from consumers. Please note that I have no problem with a universal health care system in which the poor or disabled have benefits paid for them--its the delivery system that I take issue with.

One of the things I have repeatly argued for here at DU is a system where group insurance is banned and people are forced to buy health insurance for themselves and take the time to figure out what is best for them. You could distribute health care vouchers to those that need them, and those people would also have the freedom to choose insurance plans that are best for them. This way you get universal coverage but don't lose the benefits of a free market system where people can make choices based upon what they feel is best for them. That's exactly how we do it with food (aka food stamps for the poor) and I don't see why it wouldn't work for health care as well.

Just my $0.02

[ret5hd]

70. why don't we do that for fire and police protection also?

[Nederland]

75. We do

First of all, in a sense we do pay for these types of services on an individual basis. Fire and police protection are only part of the equation. The reality is that in addition to those services provided by taxes, you also buy, from a variety of competing sources, insurance and other services that are designed to help you deal with fire and crime. You buy fire insurance to pay for the rebuilding of your home in the event of fire, theft insurance to reimburse you for the loss of items due to burglary, etc. In fact, the total cost most people pay for these types of insurance in many cases outweighs the individuals tax cost of police and fire forces.

However, I see the point of your question. You are wondering why we shouldn't privatize police forces. The reason is something economists call "natural monopolies". Natural monopolies are areas of the economy where the cost of providing competing services outweighs the benefits. The classic example is a water utility company. The cost of creating multiple water distribution networks to every house and building in an area far exceeds the benefits of competition. In the same way, creating multiple police forces to cover the same geographical area doesn't make economic sense.

Proof that health care is not a natural monopoly lies in observing that the current system is one where multiple providers compete (to a limited extent) and make reasonable (some would even say outrageous) profits. Natural monopolies, by definition, are areas where competing firms would lose money.

A good summary of natural monopolies is here:

http://www.bellevuelinux.org/natural_monopoly.html

[ret5hd]

78. i propose that healthcare is a "natural monopoly" also.

[Nederland]

79. Doesn't fit the definition

You can read through the link I provided to understand why.

[1932]

93. I agree. When life and death are the consequences, it's hard to bargain

People are going to pay anything to live, and if they're not willing or unable to pay, society loses as much as the person who dies as a consequence of the price being too high.

Health care should be a loss leader -- it shoudl be something we pay for as a scoiety out of progressive taxation revenues so that society is wealthier in other parts of the economy.

[Solon]

72. As far as I can tell, there is no benefit to having...

a "Free Market" where it concerns health care. Unlike most things, health care isn't something that you want, its something you absolutely need. In addition to this, you can actually make health care CHEAPER if you spread out the risk pool as much as possible. One way to do that is pay it through taxes everyone pays already. Which is cheaper for you, paying premiums, that go up and down depending on the Stock Market, over a risk pool of let's say 100,000 people, or paying for Universal Health Care with a risk pool of let's say, rough estimate here, 200 million people? How much do you pay now on premiums now, and how much will you pay under a single payer system? Also, I don't understand what you mean by choice, what do you mean by that? Like, a choice between you NOT paying to cover cancer, or chronic illnesses, in the hope of saving a few bucks, at the same time praying you won't come down with something like that.

Actually this brings up another point, "preexisting conditions", Insurance companies, as a matter of routine, will drop you like a bad habit if they thing the latest illness or condition is the result of something you had for a while, like a childhood injury. Hell I had to fight the insurance companies in court just to get physical therapy, because my injury was a result of a "preexisting conditions", I lost, and am deeply in debt now. Insurance companies are vultures, and should be destroyed utterly.

[Nederland]

74. Explanation

You mention that "unlike most things, health care isn't something that you want, its something you absolutely need." This is true, but it is equally true of food, clothing and shelter--all three of which are currently delivered by the free market. I fail to see why health care should be viewed as more important or essential than food.

As for your question about choice, the choice would be which insurance provider to go with and which plan. A free market insurance system in which individuals are free to chose between a variety of insurance providers all competing for business is a recipe for excellent service, which is definately lacking in today's system.

[raccoon]

76. That sounds good,

"the choice would be which insurance provider to go with... is a recipe for excellent service"

You may not be aware of some or all of the following:

--Individual insurance policies are expensive as hell, even if you have big deductibles, especially if you've not a young person.

--IF you are lucky enough to afford individual insurance, they may not insure you if you have certain health conditions. For example, I know a man, then about 60, who couldn't get it because his cholesterol was high.

--They may insure you, but exclude pre-existing health conditions.
Totally. Forever and ever.

--as Solon pointed out, they can also drop you like a hot potato if they think you're going to cost them too much money.

[Solon]

77. Yep, exactly...

The problem is that you aren't free to choose between them in the first place, so where is the "free" market in that case?

[Nederland]

81. Exactly

That is precisely the problem that I would like to see rectified through legislation. Make it illegal for insurance to discriminate against people for health reasons and force them to compete.

[Nederland]

80. Response

--Individual insurance policies are expensive as hell, even if you have big deductibles, especially if you've not a young person.

Yes they are, but they reflect the true cost of providing services in the current system. More importantly, as I said early, I see nothing wrong with subsidizing people that can't afford high premiums. The cost is therefore irrelevant.

--IF you are lucky enough to afford individual insurance, they may not insure you if you have certain health conditions. For example, I know a man, then about 60, who couldn't get it because his cholesterol was high.

I would make this type of discrimination illegal.

--They may insure you, but exclude pre-existing health conditions.
Totally. Forever and ever.

I would make this type of exclusion illegal, as it is in many states already.

--as Solon pointed out, they can also drop you like a hot potato if they think you're going to cost them too much money.

I would make this type of action illegal as well. Actually, I believe it is already illegal.


Hope that explains my position better.

[Solon]

86. Actually it isn't illegal, they just find loopholes...

I'll give an example in my case, a couple of years ago, I was in a car accident, had inflamed cartilage around sternum, concussion, etc. I hate getting rear-ended. Anyways, that wasn't too much of the problem, auto insurance covered it, I didn't have health insurance yet, it was my second day on the job, still within the 90 day probationary period. Anyways, after being reimbursted, taking a lot of drugs, etc. I was as good as new, or so I thought. Fast forward a year, woke up one morning with an excrusiating pain in my left shoulder, in addition to it tingling, and losing SOME motor control of left hand. So, went to the doctor, he said it was a pinched nerve caused by a previous injury, internal scar tissue from that past injury pushing against one of the nerves for your arm and shoulder. He said that it could have been from a year or more ago. The only cause I could think of was the accident the year before, because I was wearing a seat belt, and driving, the shoulder strap was over that shoulder. Asked him about, and he said it was likely.

So he did what any doc would do, reported the visit and diagnosis, and subsequent treatments, drugs and PT to the insurance company. They rejected my claim, claiming it was a preexisting condition due to a previously UNREPORTED injury. Considering even I wasn't aware of such injury until it became symptomatic, I thought it was bullshit. Went to a lawyer, and after several months of trying to pay for PT, which is expensive as hell, plus lawyers fees, I didn't have a case. This sucked royally, so I asked if the auto insurance would cover it, he said no, there was no way to conclusively prove that the injury was caused by the auto accident.

I was up shits creek, because, I lost my job and insurance, required the use of both hands after all, plus I had to pay for PT, several times a month, which I couldn't, so I only went when I had the money. Due to that, recovery took a LONG assed time. Now, finally, after over a year, I actually have use of my arm, to a limited extent, can't lift anything heavy with it, and it still tingles, as if asleep, ALL THE DAMN TIME!!!! But the finger convulsions have stopped, thank goodness, I can now type with both hands! I also still can't lift it above my shoulders without pain, but at least the pain is managable now.

Though now, just a few weeks ago, I was driving, and I made a left turn using that arm, and it starting hurting like hell and convulsing a little bit. I took days off of work just so I don't cause further damage, also, as a last note, the doctor recommended surgery to fix it, like I could ever afford that.

BTW: Applied for state help, yeah like that will happened, rejected, but what do I expect from Matt Blunt? Also, I can't file for even a temporary handicap, doesn't restrict my mobility, just usefulness as a worker.

While your suggestions seem worthwhile, they wouldn't help me now, nor, do I think, will it restrict these vultures nearly as much as you think. Remember, these companies have literally armies of lawyers and workers who sole purpose is to deny claims, only somewhere around 10 to 30 percent of their workers even deal with claims, most are investors and analysts.

[Nederland]

90. Tragic

I don't want you to think for a moment that I'm taking the side of insurance companies. I'm not and how yours is treating you is despicable. However, what make you think that the same thing might not happen in government controlled healthcare under a Republican administration?

This is why I feel so strongly about having a choice. The easy ability to go somewhere else for a good or service is a great motivator for companies of all types. In the current system changing insurance companies usually means changing jobs. In a single payer system changing the system means booting someone out of office. In my ideal system, changing health insurance carriers would be as easy as changing your auto insurance carrier, and companies would be prohibited by law from refusing you. If insurance companies are faced with a situation where losing your business is as easy as filling out a few forms you better believe they would start treating you right.

[blondeatlast]

96. Excuse my butting in after I said I wouldn't anymore... ;-) I absolutely

see your point.

We already have such a system, and while it has become a bit bureaucratically bulgy, it still manages to do the job--of course I'm talking about Medicare.

I just think getting the "insurance" out of health care and having it managed by health care professionals who don't see the quarterly report as the be-all and end-all as a necessarty step; and from what you have said, you may agree with me at least a little.

As to your point aboput the risk under a Republican administration, we are seeing them nibble away at Medicare and much more obviously at Social Security. They set this in motion 30 years ago, made it "acceptable" during the Reagan years, and they still are finding it an uphill battle. The checks and balances are the voters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. I remember talking to staunch Thatcherite Conservatives in the UK

And even they were absolutely appalled at the American attitude toward health care and the lack of publicly supported health care for everyone.

This is a great shame on the United States of America. It is immoral to oppose single-payer universal health care.

[Zhade]

73. Damn good point.

After all, who defines "affordable" - the pharmaceutical companies and hospital chains like those owned by the Frist family?

[VADem11]

84. Agree to a point

I agree that there should be single payer health care but I think there should be some sort of minimal fee for those who can afford it. Japan and France pay for 85% of care and 100% of catastrophic health care. I think that those most in need should have free care with fees for everyone else.

[raccoon]

103. I agree with you there,

"some sort of minimal fee for those who can afford it."

When people don't have to pay anything at all, lots of people go to the doctor when it isn't necessary, such as for a broken fingernail.
Well, maybe not for that, but you get the idea.

[usregimechange]

85. Lets get it for the kiddos first.

[Ciggies and coffee]

88. Hello, first post and a question...

Is Big Insurance exempt from federal antitrust laws?

[blondeatlast]

92. Welconme to DU. I don't have your answer, but it's a very good question.

Anyway, until the answer comes, :toast:

[Ciggies and coffee]

98. Thanks for the welcome. I did a search and it appears to be the case

Insurance companies regulated by a state insurance commission are exempt from federal antitrust laws.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm

In my state, the insurance department is staffed with (you guessed it) former insurance industry people.

[SonofMass]

89. There is no such thing as a free lunch or free healthcare.

[blondeatlast]

91. Also, there is no point responding to a post if you haven't

read it thoroughly.

The Op made your points a LONG time ago...

[SonofMass]

104. I did. OP is contradictory. How can something be free, paid for

by US taxpayers. The OP is gibberishPerhaps OP is blonde.

[MeatLoafZero]

94. I work in the shipping department for my company

and am constantly arguing with the Post Office about costs, lost mail, etc.

Have you ever said "Hey! Let's go hang out at the DMV! It'll be a blast!"?

In one national park (I forget which), the government employees ruined Starbucks coffee. How do you ruin Starbucks coffee? By not following the serving guidelines.

The idea that the government can efficently run healthcare frightens me.

I agree that a reform of the insurance companies would be more beneficial, and free up the resources to help the truly needy.

[Ciggies and coffee]

101. 37 cents to mail a letter from Alaska to Florida

Could a private corporation give you that kind of a deal? Of course not, how could we make a profit, oh and pay our CEO 100 million a year?

Your lost mail may have been shredded by machines that replaced an actual person sorting mail, who would have handled your letter with care.

Insurance companies contribute between 20-30 percent to the cost of health care. Medicare is somewhere around 3 percent. Universal care for all would be even less. And it would be non-profit.

Doctors would still run their own practice, and you could go to whomever you desired. The government would only be cutting the checks, paid for by taxes, which would be much less per capita than the premiums paid to insurance companies, which are artificially lowered due to tax incentives already.

While we are at it, we should double the amount of doctors per capita by opening and expanding medical schools, and letting
nurses, for example, practice as equals to doctors when they have a few years of experience.

And I haven't even started on Big Pharma.

[LSK]

108. bah, that is a total myth

I never have had lost mail in my life. National Parks are run pretty efficiently. This is just another MYTH, just like welfare myths and other urban legends.

But if you want to go hangout somewhere, go hangout in the hospital waiting rooms and compare $100,000 hospital bills.

[knitter4democracy]

97. Amen and amen!!!

My hubby's been saying that since med school (when he started seeing just how f'd up the system is).

What will it take for us to get this system? There are doctors fighting for it, patients agitating for it, politicians behind it, and yet--nothing. Every time our country faces a difficult time, it's brought up in Congress, and every time it's shot down. There's a good piece in the latest New Yorker about the philosophy behind our system, and I think it's right.

[Ciggies and coffee]

102. A Small Business Boom

Would result from Universal Care For All.

Workers would get a big taste of freedom, in that their health no longer depends upon their employer. They might decide to start their own business, and when time comes around to hire some people, they too would be covered. A win for the little guy/gal.

This is just one part of the picture.

[LeftyElvis]

105. I agree, but with a caveat;

Healthcare costs can be blamed largely on our collective unhealthy lifestyles. My uncle is an orthopedist and he claims that many of his patients that require treatment or surgery because of joint pain have problems because they are just too fat. The joints can't take it. Are they willing to lose weight or improve their own health by eating better and exercising? For the most part, he says no. They want a quick fix, a pill for pain of surgery. He has a 33 year old woman patient who rides around in one of those scooters because her knees hurt.....why? She weighs 310 pounds, eats like a horse and she wants pain pills for her knees. The other thing is that with drugs it's a double edged sword; we want quick FDA approvals and instant results and when we don't get the or the side effects cause us harm, we sue. You don't see this in Canada or other countries. Surely healthcare is an absolute free right but we have to take on more responsiblity for at least trying to be healthy.

[SeekerofTruth]

106. Have to change medical malpractice first....

Everyone seems to forget that the industrialized countries that have 'Universal Healthcare' also have 'loser pays' lawsuits.

In other words, if you bring a lawsuit against someone or something, and you lose the suit you not only have to pay your lawyers fees, but you also have to pay the fees of the person/company you sued.

Universal healthcare and tort reform go hand in hand.

[eridani]

112. Not relevant

Malpractice suits are mainly about paying for mistakes which cause the need for a whole lot more health care over a lifetime basis. If you have universal health care, you already have this and don't need to sue anyone to get it.

[LSK]

107. i agree, cut military and give us health care

I believe military spending per year is $450billion. That is 3 times all the other countries combined. And this is all to chase a few guys riding horses and hiding in caves in the desert (supposedly). Lets cut by $300billion and that would be one hell of a start to universal health care for all US citizens.

[Threedifferentones]

111. Wouldn't that be nice?