Health Care

hottriplej: Some of these facts are old and out of date,,,,,however I think they basically still apply,,,,,,,,,,,so here goes;

In 1992, as much as $45 billion in health care costs was spent on administrative fees, rather than going to care providers for direct care.
A cycle of escalating costs and declining coverage is largely the result of a growing number of uninsured Americans. Patients without insurance seldom can afford to pay for their medical expenses out-of-pocket, so their costs are absorbed by the doctors and hospitals that treat them. These Doctors and hospitals, in turn, raise their rates to cover the expense of caring for patients who are not covered or can not pay, which is why $2 aspirin tablets and $2,400 crutches sometimes appear on hospital bills. Insurers, in turn confronted with having to cover higher rates begin trimming coverage and raising the price of premiums, deductibles and co-payments for people with insurance. As the price of premiums go up, fewer employers are willing or able to provide coverage for their workers, so more people lose their insurance. Thus the vicious cycle continues.
President Roosevelt and other progressive leaders were among the first to propose universal health care coverage nearly a century ago. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned a national health insurance system as a complement to Social Security,,,,,as part of his New Deal. The idea went nowhere owing in large to opposition from the American Medical Association, the lobbying group representing the nations doctors, who feared governmental control over their practices.
President Truman took up the cause of universal health care coverage as part of his Fair Deal and included it in his campaign platform in the 1948 election. He too was thwarted by the well-financed AMA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, suggesting it was linked to socialism and communism. Truman then proposed a more modest idea of providing health insurance for Social Security recipients.
In 1965, President Johnson's Great Society initiative led to the creation of Medicaid and Medicare, this provided federally funded health insurance for two underserved groups- the poor and the elderly.
These programs serve,(correct me if I am wrong) but about 100 million individuals today. This in my opinion represents the biggest health care success of the twentieth century and the realization of President Truman's goal.
Well there, I have had my say,,,,and hopefully the above figures are at least somewhat correct,,,,I would appreciate any and all comments, especially if they are given in a civil manner.

(Special note to my friend David,, your turn,,,,bring it brother!) LOL

Wampum6: Hmmm..mm....hmmmm

davidk14: .

First of all, I’m not against Healthcare for all. However, there is a huge issue how to pay for it.

Right now, the current liability to tax payers for the current Medicare program is $76.6 Trillion dollars. The current liability to tax payers for Prescription Drug Liability (Medicare Part D) is $19.3 Trillion dollars. Both of these combined is $95.5 Trillion dollars that the US Taxpayer is currently responsible for according to the US Federal Reserve. This does not even touch Medicaid which is for the folks that currently cannot pay for their medical care. Medicaid rolls are going to increase perhaps by 40 million folks because of the new Healthcare initiative. The new Healthcare Law is now being challenged in court by 20 states because it is going to send costs for the taxpaying public through the roof.

Again, I don’t really think anyone wants people to not be covered. However, the only way to cover the costs of these programs is to raise taxes tremendously to cover the increase of medical care. The issue is, the Healthcare proposal was originally sold to the American public as budget neutral. We now know it is far from that.

The new proposal is 2600 pages long. Most of the legislators never even read it before voting for it. That is disturbing.

The following is an article regarding the cost:




CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion
BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
March 18, 2010 6:36 PM

The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 — apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges — and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.





And as we all know, this program doesn’t start until 2014 so the yearly liability is actually much, much higher. Since this administration has been in the White House for 19 months, the debt has grown to equal all debt the country has ever had, from Washington to Bush…combined.

This does not include the trillions that the new Healthcare law will create.


.

mj8248: Very well said.

Wampum6: Thanks for the pertinent data, David. You have hit my sentiments exactly.

hottriplej: So gentleman,,,,,,,,,apparently things are just fine as they are,,,,,,,,or possibly there is a solution to these pressing matters that confound our situation,,,,,,,,do you know that we spend more money on health care than any other nation on the planet but yet we have people that have none??? It is easy to sit back on out laurels and state our opinions as well as be comfortable with the way things are, or do any of you feel the need for change????

hottriplej: By the way Wampum,,,,,,,,,are you by chance a Native American,,,,,,,or do you come by your screen name by chance,,,,,,,,,?? either way how are your health care costs covered?,,,,,,,If I may respectfully may ask?

dellprinter: In Ireland we have private health care for a €1000 per year per person on average.
There is a medical card system for those unemployed or low income.
The middle group who cannot afford insurance and who do not qualify for a medical card go without.

With a population of 4 million approx. it should be feasible to have universal health care.

In Ireland the administrative staff are often poorly educated, obscenely over paid and have no connection to the medical system.

With such poor public services here, the tax payer is unlikely to push for universal health care.

Greed is also a factor, from both sides, if its free it will be exploited.

The UK has free health care for all but this is also exploited and people there in general do not appreciate what they have. I have many UK relatives and they go on skiing holidays in Switzerland etc, they break a leg and expect the state to carry the cost. I think that’s unreasonable.

So until the greed factor reduces and people actively take responsibility for themselves, universal health care in not affordable in many countries.

However in the USA there seems to be a small issue on the amount of money spent of the military. About $663.8 billion Inc over seas spending. That type f money would give everyone in USA free third level education and free health care

chronology: Dellprinter. The U.S. is depressing. France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy all have accessible Health Care systems. Personally, after what I have been listening too, am seriously pessimistic Americans can organise anything. The comparisons with Germany regarding value for money in Public Service is striking. Germans have efficient value for Public Services, America is a basket-case of privatised companies skimming off millions in profits while public services are almost Latin American in standard. The same mess would probably come about if they tried to run a health service like Germany. The alarm bells should have been going off when hundreds of dead bodies were left rotting in streets for weeks after Katrina. And no Mr David am not slamming America, just wanting the American people to get the Services they deserve, not what folks like yourself 'think' they deserve.

Wampum6: Hottriplej....I am not a Native American, but would be proud if I was. My family has been in this country for a long time. As for my medical coverage, that is my business, thanks.

hottriplej: health care,,,,,,,ones personal business,,,,guess that is what this is all about

Wampum6: Nothing to see here. Post deleted by user.

davidk14: .

Hot said: So gentleman,,,,,,,,,apparently things are just fine as they are,,,,,,,,or possibly there is a solution to these pressing matters that confound our situation,,,,,,,,do you know that we spend more money on health care than any other nation on the planet but yet we have people that have none??? It is easy to sit back on out laurels and state our opinions as well as be comfortable with the way things are, or do any of you feel the need for change????

David responds: Hot, I’ve taken some time to think about your post. I’ve started and deleted my responses a number of times because as I move into a thought, I realize I’m not as informed as I want to be, but here goes, again…

• Things are not just fine as they are…
• There must be a solution since we have put men on the moon…
• Our health care is expensive…
• And yes, I feel that we need to change course regarding healthcare in America…

Increasing the national debt is not the answer to increasing the quality of Healthcare or making sure everyone has insurance.

“Each generation will reap what the former generation has sown.”

Our generation is reaping great health care but we also have an expensive system and 10% of the population has no healthcare.

My first feeling is for us to understand what is good about the system and build on it. Throwing money at it is not the answer.

I think what really chaps my hide is that the 2600 pages of the Healthcare Reform Act was voted on by the democratic majority House and Senate without the majority even reading it.

There are ways to reduce expenses such as limit lawyer’s abilities to bring unfounded allegations into courts. My daughter decided not to become a doctor because if she studied and after 14 years of education, she would start her first job paying approximately $300,000 a year for mal-practice insurance before buying food, and that doesn’t include the cost of repaying her education loans. Hospitals also have outrageous legal expenses as well. No wonder doctors and hospitals have to bill insurance companies so much. The Obama Healthcare bill does not address this situation at all. Why? Lawyer lobbyists.

There are so many other issues that contribute to the expense line that are not being addressed as well.

Increasing taxes and the debt is not the answer in reducing costs and improving access.

.

msbonjour: I AGREE WITH YOU AND THANK YOU FOR THE INFOR I DIDNT REALIZE WAS STARTED WAY BACK THEN. yOU INFOR SHOULD BE PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR EVERYONE TO READ. LATER ELAINE

Wampum6: Once again, David's comments are right on target, for anyone who is willing to pay attention.

dellprinter: Taking some personal responsibilty for ones health and safety might be the beginning of reducing costs.

If you smoke, it costs more, so stop.

If you are obese,eat less.

If you fall in a hospital A&E because you are drunk, dont sue, its your fault.

There are no simple answers but personal responsibility needs to be top of the list.

Wampum6: You are very correct, Dell. Personal responsibility is a significant, but unmeasured factor. Keep in mind that others fritter away lots of money and never consider it.

hottriplej: yes and figures lie,,,,,and liars figure,,,,,,,,not meaning to call anyone names here,,,,,,however,,,,,it is not just a matter of throwing money at this immense problem,,,,,,,,like watergate,,,,,,,,,follow the money,,,,,,,follow the lobbyists that oppose this,,,,whom do they represent? what is their motive?,,,,,,is it possibly the insurance companies?,,,,,,We must ask ourselves who would benifit,,,,,,who would not?,,,,,,,,,It is a Goddamn shame that the finest country on the planet,,,,cannot even carry our wounded,, and I must ask,,,,,what were the initial responses to Medicare,,,,and who originally disagreed with this program,,,,,and,,,,,,again,,,,who does not take advantage of it? Oh and one other question we should ask,,,,,,just who is a gentleman named Richard Mellon Scaife??,,,,,,

hottriplej: Ahh yes and simply one more notation to possibly remove any partisan agenda to this discussion,,,,,,please read what a gentleman named Doctor C. Everett Koop, a pediatric surgeon, and also President Reagan's Surgeon General, in charge of overseeing the nation's Public Health Service,,had to say concerning a public health initiative.

respectfully submitted
thank you,,,James

davidk14: .

Got to love Hot for his distrust of government and corporations considering everything we touch, taste, smell and see are controlled by government and corporations. There are people in government and corporations that do try to do the right thing, however, money does talk. Keep us on our toes Hot.

A wise man once said;



Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it.

.

chronology: Mr David. I have to say it again for the umpteenth time; 'stop kissing rich folks ass'. No good will come of it. More people are living below the poverty line in the U.S. today than at any time since records began. Think about them and how you can be a helpful fellow American.

Outbackjack: "Got to love Hot for his distrust of government and corporations considering everything we touch, taste, smell and see are controlled by government and corporations."

Controlled but not made by the corporations.
These goods are made by normal working people who,if the corporations did not have working for them, would all fall over in a heap.

Why cant the U.S have universal health care?

I dont see why.
All the talk about increased taxes is just bullshit.

When they brought in Universal health care here in Australia.They raised income tax by 1.5% to fund it.

The U.S could do the same.

davidk14: .


From the National Times (Australia)


Universal healthcare in Australia may become unaffordable

by Richard Harper

(Professor Richard Harper is emeritus director of cardiology, Monash Heart, Southern Health, and holds a consultative position with the Victorian Department of Health. These are his personal views.)

March 15, 2010

In seeking to curb rising costs, we can learn from the Singapore model.
FEW would argue against the need to change the cumbersome arrangements for funding and governance of Australia's hospitals. Unfortunately, the changes proposed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd do not address the main challenge to our health system - the need to constrain the ever-rising health costs of an ageing population.

Without such constraint, the principle of universal high-quality healthcare, which is the cornerstone of Medicare, will eventually be unaffordable.

In general, costs are high because health expenditure, whether private or public, is not subject to the usual competitive factors that govern ordinary commercial transactions. Two ways greater competition could be introduced into our health system without compromising care would be to change Medicare to a health-savings-based system and to allow public and private hospitals to compete for patients irrespective of their insurance status.

Singapore has such a system and spends less than 4 per cent of GDP on health - far less than Australia (9.7 per cent) and the US (15.4 per cent).

The difference is staggering yet the health outcomes and life expectancies are similar in all three countries. Indeed, in the most recent World Health Organization rankings, Singapore was rated sixth best in the world compared to Australia (32nd) and the US (37th).

The Singapore system is a compulsory savings scheme (Medisave) to which employees and employers contribute equally between 6 and 8 per cent of income, depending on age. Funds from Medisave can only be used to meet medical expenses, but citizens are unable to run up negative account balances and must pay additional expenses themselves or through voluntary health insurance (Medishield).

Citizens' accounts can also be used to pay expenses of immediate family members. The poor and needy, who may have a limited Medisave account and no health insurance, can apply to the government-appointed hospital Medifund committee for assistance in paying medical expenses.

Singapore does not provide the same degree of coverage as Medicare and disadvantages the poor, the unemployed and those with chronic illnesses. As such it is unlikely to be acceptable to the Australian public.

Let us not waste the opportunity for radical change in our health system. We must ensure we end up with the fairest and most cost-efficient system possible. Failure to achieve this will jeopardize our ability to provide universal healthcare for future generations.

Professor Richard Harper is emeritus director of cardiology, Monash Heart, Southern Health, and holds a consultative position with the Victorian Department of Health. These are his personal views.
________________________________________________

davidk14: From:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts.

The salary caps and artificial increase in demand for care that always occur in a national health care system are resulting in predictable physician shortages.

• Mental patients face bed shortage
- Clara Pirani, July 4, 2005 [News.com.au]
• Public patients wait longer for surgery
- June 29, 2005 [The Sydney Morning Herald]
• Painful wait for care
- Luke McIlveen, February 17, 2005 [Herald Sun (Australia)]
• Hospitals crippled by poor planning
- Ruth Pollard, December 1, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Operating theatres shut to save cash as thousands wait for surgery
- Nick O'Malley, November 23, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Private funds creating 'two-tier' health system
- David Uren, November 3, 2004 [The Australian]
_________________________________________________

However, there are also a number of others that absolutely love the Australian Healthcare model and swear by it.

For you to say,”… Why can’t the U.S have universal health care? I don’t see why. All the talk about increased taxes is just bullshit. When they brought in Universal health care here in Australia, they raised income tax by 1.5% to fund it. The U.S could do the same.”

Let’s not forget Australia has only 22 million people compared to 310 million in the United States. It’s much easier to manage a small program compared to a massive monster that would be needed in the United States.

In the most recent WHO (World Health Organization) rankings, Australia ranked (32nd) and with the current system the US (37th). Not that much difference in rankings.


.

Outbackjack: The amount of people in any county is always proportional to the amount of tax paid.Your argument about 22 million people in this country is soooo pathetic as so many of us are so spread out.

Get real!!

You say it "may" become affordable???

Thats hardly proof that it is unaffordable.

Let me let you in on a little secret.

I have had to pay an extra couple of percent because I have earnt too much each year and not bought private health insurance..Yes go and copy and paste your stats on that pal and post it here and see the minimuim I earned some years.

Why would I pay for private health insurance?

I live in the bush and the only benefit is my own room in a public hospital as there are zero private hospitals out here.

We rely on the flying doctor in emergencies and I am already involved in plenty of local fundraising to help that cause.

Another 1% tax on top the extra levy I have paid some years that I earned too much would be pocket change and I wouldnt complain at all.

davidk14: .
______________________________________


And now to you Chronology…

Chrono said: Mr David. I have to say it again for the umpteenth time; 'stop kissing rich folks ass'. No good will come of it. More people are living below the poverty line in the U.S. today than at any time since records began. Think about them and how you can be a helpful fellow American.

David responds: Kissing rich folk’s ass? Yes, more people are living below the poverty line in the US today than at any time and “I am” thinking about them and how I can be a helpful fellow American.

I am going to vote out every democrat and republican that voted for the Stimulus Bill, the Healthcare Bill, the Economic Bill, and any other bill that raised taxes. Those are the people that sent millions of folks to the poor house. Trillions and trillions of taxes dollars were spent against the wishes of the American people and where did it put us? As you said, more people on unemployment, more people using food stamps, no jobs created as promised, unemployment through the roof even after trillions of dollars were spent and still the states are cutting jobs, state unions pension funds are unfunded even after hundreds of billions of dollars were sent to the states to shore up their deficits, and businesses are not hiring.

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS. WITHOUT BUSINESS PEOPLE, THERE ARE NO JOBS. LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN VERY CLEARLY….WITHOUT BUSINESS PEOPLE, THERE ARE NO JOBS! ANYONE WITH ECONOMICS 101 INTELLIGENCE UNDERSTANDS THIS CONCEPT.

THE TOP 3% OF INCOMES IN THE USA…WHICH INCLUDES THE MAJORITY OF ALL BUSINESSES…ARE CONSIDERED BY LEFT WING LIBERAL FANATICS…RICH. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY EARNED TO REACH THIS STATUS IS $250,000 OR MORE. FOR A BUSINESS, $250K IS NOTHING. THAT’S $20,800 A MONTH IN INCOME. FOR A BUSINESS TO BE OPEN 6 DAYS A WEEK, THAT’S $866 A DAY IN INCOME. WITH A PROFIT MARGIN OF 5%, THAT IS EQUAL TO $43.30 PROFIT A DAY. THAT’S YOUR “RICH” FOLKS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THOSE EVIL, EVIL CAPITALISTS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY PAYING THE MAJORITY OF US TAXES.

Almost every post you do, you say you care about the worker. You then should support business to create the jobs to put the people back to work.

.