B'trugger - I hear ya - and while I ABSOLUTELY support those who serve getting the level of care you get.... I'm just curious... what does that cost? Not "what does it cost you"... but what is the aggregate cost of care provided by DOD and VA? Since insurance companies provide a service, based on large amounts of capital investment to offset the risk pool, with that invested capital actually owned by stockholders, most of whom are "Joe America" holders of pension plans and 401k's, why should they NOT make profits? And, FWIW, their profits are overstated by many sources as part of this debate: PolitiFact | One health insurance company turned a profit, but not a record It's interesting that the majority of "progressive" information sources lump "administrative costs" and "marketing" in with "profits" - so they imply that only the 60% of insurance company revenues that go toward paying for insured care are somehow "legitimate" and that the remainder isn't. Then they often cite statistics regarding the "efficiency" of government administered programs like Medicare. But since government *never* includes the *true total cost* of any program in their figures like a commercial enterprise must, these numbers are highly misleading. Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance Nathan - i'll pray for you. :lol: FWIW, my family out of pocket for healthcare (including insurance premiums and HSA contributions) is approximately $7,000 per year. My employer antes in another $5,000 or so. This isn't bragging - but just to point out that I definitely have a dog in this hunt, and definitely have a vested interest in lowering healthcare costs if it can be done without sacrificing quality and choice.
A little dated - but some more interesting analysis of the Swiss system - and contrasting it to the Massachussets system (which is more like what we're likely to get from Congress... and which was advocated by the great Republican Mitt Romney). Health Policy in Maryland and Massachusetts: A Study in Contrasts
Bingo - that, and that folks can choose healthcare and lifestyle options without knowledge or regard for the cost. Example: If a generic or a name-brand pharmaceutical (don't get me started...) are available and the cost difference is $5 to the consumer but $100 to the insurance company, plenty of folks would choose the name-brand, putting the burden onto others.. Example: (above): Folks can choose to not wear seatbelts and their insurance stays in place and their level of liability for their own resultant injuries does not change. Love Obama or hate him, one of his themes that I very much enjoy is this: "take responsibility for your actions".
Dixon - the generic vs. name brand is a great, common sense example. I'm all for the pharmas making profits during the period of patent protection for new drugs. Otherwise new drugs don't happen. Costs $1B and takes about 10 years to bring a new drug to market.... But once the patent is done, generics should be the default solution. And, in fact, they ARE under many insurance plans. In which case, if you chose he name-brand, you pay out of pocket. No burden on others in his case. If you choose to pay for "enhanced" coverage that includes name-brand drugs, then you should have the opportunity to do that at a rate the market chooses. Again, no burden on others. As for healthcare and lifestyle option decisions - that is EXACTLY why government should be OUT of the healthcare business (mostly). There is NO government solution that can both insulate you from the bad decisions of others, AND have you PERSONALLY take responsibility for your actions, AND protect your constitutional rights to make your own decisions concerning your own body (remember that theme from another political argument for the past few decades?). But free market solutions are able to accomplish this, if government gets out of the way. 1) create real competition in the insurance market - not by nationalizing more of it, but by removing artificial barriers to competition. In a market where insurers sell insurance directly to consumers (not employers), and where there are no artificial barriers (arbitrary definitions of "groups" and state line boundaries), rational, affordable plans result. Look at the auto insurance industry. Lots of competition, everyone knows how much they pay, everyone can make choices regarding deductibles vs. coverage vs. costs, innovative companies differentiate and win business by making it EASIER to understand and compare coverage (e.g. progressive.com) and the industry develops more efficient channels to drive out administrative and marketing costs and achieve a combination of quality coverage, satisfied customers, and profit. 2) differentiate between health insurance and health maintenance. Allow the industry to sell solutions for both. 3) Seriously re-think the premise that EVERYONE is entitled to the best of EVERYTHING regardless of their ability to pay. I can't get in the best house, car, restaurants, hotels, airline seats, cosmetic surgery, clothing, or vacation resorts if I don't have the means to pay. But quite serviceable versions of all these are offered at price points that fit my budget. The fallacy that everyone has a "right" to home ownership didn't work out so well. With tort reform and an opening of the market, cost-effective care options will be available for the vast majority of consumers for the majority of needs. Since we've already decided as a society that we support the needs of the indigent, we have Medicaid already to handle that. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of the newest, experimental, most expensive procedures only being available to those with the means to pay for them, or those with the foresight to buy a top-tier insurance plan which covers them. I don't expect the rest of my countrymen to pay for experimental cancer treatment for me if I ever need it. I'll either find a way to pay, or I'll make do with the previous generation of treatments that are readily available and were "as good as it gets" for the past decade. 4) mandatory basic insurance coverage for catastrophic events? yeah, I probably support that. Like mandatory collision coverage on vehicles, or homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage, such a plan is primarily geared at mitigating risk for OTHERS who are exposed to financial risk if you have an event occur. In this case, the "others" are medical facilities who are required to provide you with treatment regardless of your ability to pay, and the other consumers who ultimately pay for this in higher costs.
Having moved Canada, I'm often asked about health care up there. Here is my take on the subject; Yes taxes are higher in Canada, with a large percentage of those taxes going to health care, but it does not cost anywhere near what the average person down here pays for health insurance. A lot of gambling revenue, gambling is run by provincial governments, goes towards health care costs, as do taxes on tobacco and liquor. Sort of volunteer taxes. Yes there are wait times for treatment, if you go to the ER with a splinter in your finger, you will wait longer than someone who shows up with 3rd degree burns. The wait times for the treatment of illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, joint deterioration, are mostly based on how serious they may be. Some cases do fall through the cracks, but mostly it works. If your child has a temp. of 105F, you know you can get treatment for them without having to worry about taking out a 2nd morgage to cover those costs. A much higher percentage of the total of heath care costs go to treating folks, rather than administrating the profusion of health plans down here, so I guess that makes it more efficient. There is abuse of the system, folks turn up at ERs with minor issues, like the common cold, when they could go to a clinic, which has much lower overhead, or wait a week for it to pass. The Canadian system is not perfect, it needs a major overhaul. If universal heath care is "socialist" and Doctors don't like the idea because they may not make as much money, maybe we should go back to the old system of paying for health care with chickens, and I.O.U.s of harvested crops. Mark
There. Two days without dissent. Lotsie's Food for Healthcare plan wins. Expect to hear the details of this plan in Mr. President's speechifying tonight. "Let me be clear - there can be no progress, no secure future, no equality, without sacrifice. So hand over the chicken, sucka"
Sadly I know of a doctor who did accept food as payment once so I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility. I'm a fan of a system that breaks down the barriers and creates more and fairer competition between insurers combined with reduced costs through generic drugs and tort reform, much as Blimey had said earlier. What scares me is the idea of mandated insurance with the threat of fines for failure to comply. Many equate this sort of law with mandatory auto or homeowners insurance but you kinda have to live where you don't have to drive or own a home. I want health insurance because I don't have a few hundred thousand dollars extra laying around if I were to get cancer or struck by lightning and wound up in a coma, I don't want to be having to show proof of insurance to vote.
Actually, under the current bills, voting won't be a problem. You'll have to provide proof of insurance to the IRS annually - if they deem that you do not have adequate coverage (either because you don't or because they just deem that you don't) then they are responsible for collecting the fines. At the point of a gun. Which sounds like liberty to me. Once again tonight, I heard the fallacy that says when people without insurance get treated, we all pay. Which is absolutely not always true - perhaps not even *usually* true - the hospital, doctors, et al will setup payment plans or go after a non-payers assets before they write that expense off and build the cost into others' healthcare. As they should. And then we hear that we're going to force everyone to get insurance. And if they can't afford to pay for insurance, then the gov't will pay for it. Which means that we pay for it. So I'm really struggling with the economics of how this part of the plan is really going to save me, the taxpayer, any money. Doesn't compute. I'm paying for other people's healthcare either way.
Very interesting opinion piece in today's NY Times. Our success in bringing health care costs under control ultimately depends on whether Washington can summon the political will to take on and reform a second, even more powerful industry: the food industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?em
You can have my Big Bacon Classic when you pry it from my cold, dead hand. And, if we cut down on obesity-linked diabetes, the doctors will have a hard time justifying all those illegitimate foot amputations, on which the current healthcare boondoggle so depends. Oh well.. even skinny kids' parents can be tricked into unnecessary tonsillectomies. Whew. All is not lost.
Paul, you can have your Big Bacon Classic, but when it costs less produce, market and sell than a healthy nutritious meal we as a people have our priorities askew. I'm no picture of health, in fact I could be a poster child for obesity in the US. It's to damn easy to go to the supermarket and buy already prepared foods that have some nutrition but mostly are over salted, filled with other chemicals and full of corn based sugars. I'm addicted. Our own diet is created by big agribusiness. In turn big medicine cures us all the while our politicians stand there with their hands out to greased by all these special interests leaving the general populace out of it since by their own admissions we are uneducated and don't know whats best for us. Lets cut some more education spending... How do we get off this treadmill?
Simple. We take personal responsibility for our health, what we eat, where we work, what books we read, what movies we watch, how much we exercise, how we drive, how much we spend on things we don't really need... They are all CHOICES. Most of us are sitting in the "seat of the fool"... instead of asking "what's the wise thing to do... in light of my past experiences, my current situation, and my future hopes and dreams?", we continue the same behaviors that got us in whatever sorry state we are in. Best way to get off the treadmill - stop relying on ANYONE ELSE - including government - to "take care of it" or "fix it" - take responsibility, help others to take responsibility, vote with our wallets and at the ballot box. Learn to recognize demagogues when we see them and learn to know lies when we hear them.
Personal Responsibility = roflol Don't get me started... It starts in the home, but no, we have this huge group of helicopter parents that expect our underfunded schools systems with an unfunded mandate of no-child left behind that has created such a group of coddled kids that can't even skin a knee in recess anymore.... Arghhhhh...this gets me so angry. Justice Casey Percell said, “It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.“ 1st grade graduation ceremonies - damn touch feely hippy yuppie types that want everything to be a milestone to be celebrated. Second is the first loser and a reason to try harder, not a reason to get equal acclaim as the winner. There is some kid over on "that other site" that bought a used, modded R56 MCS from his brother. The kid admits to overrevving a few time and now has a broken timing chain and a dealer that says tough luck kid, you have mods. You can almost see the generational differences in the posts between those that are coddling the brat and those that say Man Up Idiot. I'd bet a track weekend that kid "graduated from first grade", been awarded a trophy for showing up at T Ball and all the other coddling crap that kids get these days. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. Herbert Spencer English philosopher (1820 - 1903)
Amen, brother. You make my point. The ONLY solution to the "treadmill" we're on is personal responsibility. Because NO amount of government "coddling" will EVER be enough. Every new piece of legislation, and every court decision, and every speech that promotes more coddling = bad - whether perpetrated by "liberals", "conservatives", "centrists", "socialists", "compassionate conservatives", "neo-cons", "progressives", or whatever the mofos call themselves. Every thing that moves us back toward a free, constitutional republic = good. This nation needs to Man Up. While they have been grossly mischaracterized by the media, that's what the vast majority of the folks who actually attend the "tea parties" (and the 9/12 events tomorrow) are all about. That's why I have Gadsden flags on my vehicles. It's not "racism"... it's not that I'm an "angry Republican" or a "sore loser" or I don't understand the "mandate" that 51% of the American public claim to have for "change" - I want BIG change - I'm as pizzedoff at the last administration for growing government and using stupid phrases like "too big to fail" as I am at the current one for talking about how evil this was last year, then growing government even faster now. Enough is enough. Me, and a whole bunch of other folks who are paying attention, see where we've come from, where we are, and where we're going, and we believe that no matter how well-intentioned all this is, and how big-hearted the supporters are, that rationally it CAN NOT WORK. Ask yourself how it's even possible for 300 million people to each have some "good idea" for how to spend "other people's money" to advance "justice" and "fairness" and making sure all the losers get trophies too - there ain't enough money in the world to buy all those trophies. The only solution.... Man Up. Take personal responsibilty for YOURSELF. If you're fortunate enough to have more than you need, then feel free to help others, via charity, church, or paying bills for your neighbors who need your help. Don't think for one minute that you have the "moral authority" to mandate what OTHER people spend THEIR money or time on. If your cause is just, if you promote it effectively, you'll find others who will support it with their time and their treasure. That's not the proper role of government.