I'm tired of hearing about "affordable healthcare"

[NMDemDist2]

I'm sick of it.

almost every other nation in the world supplies health care to their citizens. the poorer countries don't do as well as the industrialized countries but at least they try within their means.

affordable is not the answer

universal health care is the answer

I'm really getting sick of that phrase.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Conversely, I'm sick of Republicans saying liberals want "free healthcare" for everyone...

and then suggesting that it's impossible to pay for.


It's not free, you morons, your taxes pay for it. And the increase in taxes needed for it is more than offset by the money you save by not having to pay into your company's healthcare plan every paycheck. Just drop the $90,000 cap on payroll taxes, lose Bush's ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy few, end the war in Iraq, and you've paid for it all.

[enough already]

18. It would also eliminate governmental OPEB liabilities, which are massive

Another savings to be factored into the "how do we pay for it" equation.

[yardwork]

48. Not to mention the benefits the entire country would reap from increased productivity.

Money spent on preventive healthcare more than pays for itself by preventing worse illnesses that lead to expensive interventions and lost productivity due to preventable illnesses, disabilities, and deaths.

No, better healthcare can't give us eternal life. But it certainly would give everyone in the United States better health during the years of our lives. The money saved from unnecessary hospitalizations, Emergency Department visits, expensive drugs, surgery, disability, early retirement, and premature death would more than offset the cost of care to everyone in the country. Yes, "illegals" too.

I'm enraged by people who continue to wring their hands about "the cost of healthcare" while watching us spend hundreds of billions waging war.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. I'm also getting tired of 'single payer'

Although 'universal health care' leaves open the possibility of a universal mandatory private insurance model, universal single-payer government-administered health care coverage is what we mean.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. But that's too much of a mouthful for the corporate talking heads

that feed us our media pablum.

[Gormy Cuss]

31. I know, I just wish the framing was clearer.

I don't know why so many people are afraid of "goverment" plans even though most hope to collect Medicare some day.

[Heidi]

3. What do you mean by "supplies"?

In Switzerland, CMW and I pay for our MANDATORY health insurance. What makes health care "affordable" -- and affordability certainly IS an issue for those who can't afford even the minimum payments -- is when the state subsidizes a large portion of health care costs along a sliding scale based on income. That's the case here, but even so, the minimum payment still is not affordable for some.

If by "supplies" you mean "mandates," then I think the supplying authority has a _responsibility_ to take care of even those who cannot possibly afford to pay, sliding scale or not.

[LeftCoast]

5. Thank you Heidi!

You have hit on a point that I have been talking about for a while.

Personally, I think our entire frame for the healthcare argument is wrong. Here at DU people want to make it between 'corporate insurance' v. 'free government coverage'.

[Heidi]

7. Of course, I also believe the state has a responsibility to ensure EQUAL PROTECTION

whether it mandates health insurance coverage or not.

Insert *Heidi getting flamed* here.

[LeftCoast]

9. Absolutely! It's the only way universal coverage through private insurance would work

Otherwise you get lots of people dropping between the cracks (ie. not universal coverage).

[xchrom]

20. ...

:applause:

[spooky3]

22. but when you say "the state subsidizes"...

this simply means that the taxpayers pay for it, right?

If not, where does the state get this money?

I think it's important to ask where the funding comes from in any health care proposal (and in a lot more depth than my post, i.e., which taxpayers will pay more and how much more, etc., - individuals with investment income over $x per year? insurance company taxpayers? someone else?. It helps to assess the costs and benefits.

[Heidi]

33. That's exactly right. Taxpayers offset the costs for those who cannot afford to pay the full rate

here. And I'm just fine with that.

[yardwork]

50. Let's do a similar cost/benefit on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[yardwork]

49. Here in the U.S., I pay for our mandatory war-mongering.

The money the government takes from me - against my will - to kill and torture hundreds of thousands of people living in countries half a world away would more than cover provision of good health care for everyone in the U.S.

[n2doc]

4. "affordable" shouldn't even be an issue

You are exactly right. We the People need Universal Healthcare- we already pay enough to support it, if we wern't so busy buying war toys and making Bush cronys rich. No one should ever need to see a bill for medical care again, unless it is for elective/cosmetic surgery.

[annie1]

10. how do we pay enough to support it? taxes in european countries are higher than ours.

[Benhurst]

11. We are at this very moment paying more per capita for health care than any other nation--

and we are rated, depending on the source, as ranking either 38th or 52nd in quality of health care.

The health care in this nation is a joke, a very sick joke.

Pigs at the trough.

[NMDemDist2]

12. we take all the money paid to insurance companies and repeal the

tax break on the richest 5% of the country

that should do it eh?

[Benhurst]

14. The tax breaks for the upper 5% need to be repealed. But taking

the money paid to the "insurance" companies alone would probably pay for universal single-payer health care.

[n2doc]

17. My post answers that question

We spend hundreds of billions on useless wars and subsidies. No need to raise taxes, take that money and spend it on health care.

Frankly, though, taxes should be raised back to 2000 levels. Taxes are not a bad thing, they are necessary in a civilized world. Consider the limit- no taxes means no effective government, which equals Iraq/afghanistan/Congo/Darfur....And the tax cuts we have gotten are simply being paid for by borrowed money from China.

And as noted by others, the Government can take the roughly $1000/month my company and I pay in insurance premiums. I don't see it now, and would be happy to see if go to a universal payer system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. If everything that individuals and corporations are currently paying

for health insurance premiums was instead being paid to the government as taxes, the people and corporations would be no worse off and it would FULLY fund national healthcare.

It is not as if the healthcare taxes would be imposed on top of what is already being paid. I would certainly prefer the $700/mo for my insurance to go to the government instead, and not have 30% skimmed off the top for the benefit of some CEO.

[bighart]

40. People are delusional

if they don't think there will be some kind of tax increase when the government takes over the health insurance for everyone. There will be a significant increase in taxes, maybe not right away, but within 5 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. But those people will NOT be paying health insurance premiums,

deductibles, co-pays, etc. It will be a wash.

Just cause it's in the form of taxes does not make it evil. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized world.

[bighart]

44. Based on what I pay for health insurance,

$50 per month with very good coverage and reasonable deductibles of $500 per family member per year and great pharmacy coverage and dental, it will NOT be a wash for me. I acknowledge that my coverage is considerably better than most, but that is the same for all of the 1000 plus that work for the same company and we will all be paying more for less coverage than what we have now. Just look at the mess with the script coverage under medicare. While I may be in the minority as far as my current insurance coverage I would be willing to bet there are a significant number of others that will find themselves paying more for medical coverage and treatment than they are currently paying. That being said I do agree that something needs to be done to cover all of the uninsured, at one time I was there my self and had a family. I know what it's like to have to make a choice between buying groceries and taking one of the kids to the doctor. All I can say is I was lucky to have a mother-in-law that is generous to her own detriment. She at times bought food for my family while skipping meals herself, I didn't find that out until later and am humbled by her sacrifice. As a result of being in that position I made good insurance coverage a factor when I was looking for employment and was lucky enough to find a job I like with good coverage as well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. I think you have some mistaken assumptions there.

While YOU pay $50/mo, your employer pays one hell of a lot more to be able to offer you that coverage. rightfully speaking, what your employer is paying is your money, only he is diverting it directly to your coverage rather than paying you more and letting YOU pay for your coverage.

I work for the state - I am single - I have the lowest BC/BS coverage and I pay no monthly premium; the government pays @700/mo for me. I get paid less than people in equivalent positions outside the government, but my insurance coverage easily makes up for that.

Under a government single-payer plan my taxes would go up, but the state government would not be responsible for my healthcare, and what is now being paid to BC/BS would be payable directly to me, and I would then have the income to pay for the tax increase, which would be less than the $700/mo the state pays for me now, because 30% of that $700 goes to overhead and executive salaries - only 70% actually pays for healthcare.

Also, under a European style single payer system you would not be paying "more for less coverage than what we have now", because NOTHING is not covered. Everthing from reflux meds to triple-bypass surgery is fully covered. Pre-existing conditions are not a factor - health is the only determinate.

Take a good look at those systems, see what they do and how they do it.

No one should EVER have to make the choice between doctors or food in the richest country on earth. The only reason that happens is because in the past 50 years the healthcare profession has been deliberately re-shaped into the healthcare industry, with profit, not health, as the overriding concern. It's time to change that.

[bighart]

47. I would challenge one point.

The cost of malpractice insurance has done a lot to drive up the cost of health care in this country, not just corporate take over. Why is this, because litigation. In fact it could be argued that corporate take over of the health care industry was hastened by the rising cost of malpractice judgments. This is a very complicated issue and I don't know that there is a simple solution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. IMO, that's another mistaken assumption.

The cost of malpractice insurance is attributable to the corporatization of the healthcare industry, not the other way around. Actual malpractice judgements are a fraction of the amounts collected by the medical insurance industry, and most malpractice is settled out of court by the medical insurance industry so they can limit their costs - thus keeping incompetant practitioners in practice for the next time around. The insurance companies make a hell of a lot more than they pay out in claims. Take the profit out of it and the 5% of practioners who are responsible for 95% of malpractice claims will lose the protection of the insurance industry and be retired, as they should be.

[yardwork]

53. Malpractice insurance is a tiny fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.

You're lucky to have good health insurance. Your company receives significant tax breaks to provide that health coverage. If you lose your job, you won't have the health insurance anymore, and you'll be just like millions of other Americans.

[yardwork]

51. How are we paying enough to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What's more important - war or good health?

[CTyankee]

6. I think "affordable" is meant generically, since ultimately even in Canada and Western European

countries people pay for health care through their taxes. IOW, the tax burden should not be so great as to be unaffordable either. I don't see it narrowly as an extra that each citizen has to pay for. It should be meshed into our tax system; that is the fairest way and also the most economical way of doing it.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

13. Very high taxes pays for universal healthcare. There is no

free healthcare anyplace.

[Benhurst]

15. Yeah, but here we pay a fortune to the rip-off private insurance

companies and have crappy health care to boot.

We are paying more per capita than any other nation-- for crappy coverage.

[bighart]

41. I don't expect the quality of care

will improve just because the government is the health insurance provider.

[sandnsea]

16. Should we mandate unaffordable healthcare? n/t

[Benhurst]

19. Well, we mandate unaffordable "defense" here in the World's Only Superpower,

and a fat lot of good all those trillions of Dollars did us on 9/11.

Maybe we should give single-payer universal health care and peace a chance for a change.

[sandnsea]

21. And let people die until then? n/t

[Benhurst]

24. People are dying under the present corrupt health care system.

And our military did squat to protect us on 9/11. The fact that that wasn't investigated BIG TIME shows just how corrupt the system is.

I'm not sure I get your point.

[sandnsea]

26. And they'll continue to die waiting for your solution n/t

[Benhurst]

29. Of course they will, because the American system is built on greed.

This country's health care sucks, and until people realize just how backward the World's Only Superpower is, it will continue to do so.

[sandnsea]

30. My state provides subsidized insurance

I won't die waiting for your utopia. The deaths that happen every day, while you oppose subsidized premiums, those are on your head.

[Benhurst]

32. Just because I'm for single-payer hardly makes me opposed to

subsidized insurance as a stopgap. Unfortunately, most of The World's Only Superpower is not so covered. The deaths caused by this country's crappy "insurance" industry are hardly on my head.

Oregon may be a bit more progressive than most of the country, but it's still a backward place compared to most of the industrialized world. The United States is deservedly becoming the laughing stock of the Western World.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. As I understand the Oregon Health Plan, you have to be

awfully low-income to qualify for it. A lot of people still fall between the cracks.

[NMDemDist2]

23. did you even *read* my post ?

we already have mandated unaffordable insurance for almost 48 million Americans

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

25. We have mandated insurance??? Where? n/t

[NMDemDist2]

27. it is mandated that if you want insurance,

you pay through the nose to private for profit corporations for the most part



Main Entry:
2mandate
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
man·dat·ed; man·dat·ing
Date:
1919

1: to administer or assign (as a territory) under a mandate2: to make mandatory : order; also : direct require

[sandnsea]

28. No, you can get a min wage job

and move to a state that offers subsidized insurance or generous medicaid assistance.

My point is that until we get affordability into the equation, there will never be a real movement for everyone to have medical coverage. People are as terrified at losing an additional 8% of their income as they are at catastrophic medical costs. I don't know why so many people don't get that.

[yardwork]

54. No way. Hardly any states offer "generous medicaid assistance"

and even if one is "fortunate" enough to get medicaid coverage, it's virtually impossible to find a health care provider who will accept medicaid patients. Subsidized insurance? Where? How much cost for how much coverage?

It's not just the lack of health insurance. Millions of Americans simply have no access to health care. Period. Believe me. This is my field and I've been studying it for more than twenty years.

[FlyingSquirrel]

35. Too late to recommend... please repost so I can! ;-)

k

[dailykoff]

37. Ditto.

I didn't notice this one earlier but it's right on target.

:thumbsup:

[Canuckistanian]

36. Imagine the phrase, "Affordable Police Protection"

Or, "Affordable Road Maintenance". Imagine a State Trooper pulling you over and saying, "Sorry, you're not allowed to use that Interstate, because you don't have the Platinum Road Plan. You'll have to get off and use the side streets.

Do you think people would stand for that?

[laureloak]

38. Then vote for Edwards 'cause he's the only one who will make

universal health care a reality. The others will sell out to the insurance corporations.

[area51]

43. kick. (n/t)

[no name no slogan]

46. "Affordable" is a red herring

We ALREADY have a number of universal-style healthcare systems in place in this country-- the solution is to expand either one of them to cover everybody, regardless of means or ability.

For example, we could expand Medicare or Medicaid to cover those who currently are uninsured and without access to healthcare. The same goes for the VA system, or the plan that Congress has to cover its members.

It's not a matter of "can we do it?". It's a matter of "WILL we do it". We have the means. Do we have the courage?