Obama asks the question.............

[BK]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Starving Steve is absolutely correct - and our Federal Government is best suited for solving the Health care crisis
.
The Federal Government created the Social Security system and the system that was designed is the best in the World. Its truly amazes me that our leaders had the foresight to design a self funding perpetual system we have today.

The Federal Government came up with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help people get access to affordable Mortgages. Can you imaging the Housing Crisis we may have had by now without these Organizations.

How about the incredible job the SEC has done over seeing our Securities Market. Can you imagine if we didn't have Federal oversight of the Securities Markets. We might have had massive fraud committed against citizens of the USA.

ITs time we get the Private Sector out of Healthcare there is way to much opportunity for mismanagement, fraud, and cost over runs.

[flintlock]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

I think you make a great point. If,however, if we built the infrastructure and trained the people to staff a healthcare system and targeted servicing the elderly and veterans we would have plenty of capacity for the younger folk who don't need as much support.

Well we already have the infrastructure for the elderly and veterans. They get the best health care in the world, especially the elderly. The real crisis is in those over say 40 yet nowhere near the age of making it to medicare age. That's when most serious medical problems start cropping up and so the premiums skyrocket. There's a big gap there in affordability due to rising costs. For those of us who can't get on a group plan the coverage is bad and premiums high. My point is they go to extremes treating some people and others go without completely. Its not PC, but health care will eventually end up being rationed I think. Our technical ability has outpaced our ability to pay for it. I don't see why we can't come up with a basic coverage for all that is affordable. And those who want premium service and the latest technology can kick in more money if they want to.

Even all the claims of children going without health care is bunk. Kids are cheap to insure. There simply is no reason health care for children can't be paid for. I think my wife once checked into insurance for just my three kids and it was less than $100 month. That's a smokescreen. Its the adults without coverage we are really talking about here, more specifically middle age adults.

[flintlock]

Re: Obama asks the question.....FIRE - Immigration- Healthcare

I am 58 years old and have always lived in USA

When I was a child in the 1950's some people had "hospitalization." this covered going to the hospital only: You paid your doctor and for your medicines directly. These professionals worked only for you and managed your care without third party interference.

Over the next two decades "hospitalization" expanded to include paying for your doctor and paying for your drugs and paying for any test or specialist you might want to go to or to whom you doctor sent you. Herein, in my opinion is where the wheels began to come off in our medical system !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
An additional "profit" center was added to health care costs and that was corporate insurance companies.


Besides the unseen costs associated with the insurers there is another problem in my opinion. THE INSURANCE COMPANY CONTROLS HEALTHCARE, not the patient and not the doctor in some cases. Based on their requirements the insurance company often tells me the type of medication which they "approve." When my doctor says I need a test, the insurance company has to "preapprove it." When I need to see a specialist I have to get a "pre-approval" from the insurance company.

In my opinion if you really want to "reform" healthcare then go back to the fifties type system. Everybody (excluding medicare and medicaid) pays for the doctors and for drugs. If you need a test: pay for it. And if you need to go to the hospital then get hospitalization. If I had a choice, this would be my plan: even though I have a chronic illness, take meds and get tests. I would rather pay for them myself and take out the middle man insurance company and I want more control .Nevertheless, I would like to "insure" against trips to the hospital.

You are exactly right about when the "wheels began to come off". I was talking with my father the other day and he mentioned that health insurance wasn't even a major expense for him when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s. Now its a lot of people's largest single expense, exceeding even their mortgage.

The FIRE economy is responsible for this to a degree. People became so indebted and used to monthly payments that they no longer could "afford" even a relatively small but unexpected medical bill. And psychologically they had a problem writing one big check so instead opted for the smaller amount every month in the form of higher insurance premiums. The fact that health insurance became a major employment benefit also allowed the real costs to be hidden from the average American until it was too late. I use to provide health insurance to my employees and they didn't even appreciate it. They were young and thought they'd surely never need it. They'd take a 25 cent hour raise over full health coverage if you offered it to them. Now they'd kill to have that good of a plan back.

[jhurt]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Wildspitze...GREat video! Thanks.

[Spartacus]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Just to answer your question, here's one reason that's sometimes given

I have no clue about US healthcare, can someone explain to me why a lot of people want single payer and Obama doesn't want to, even though he promised it?

from this page ( I can't find the original article - I remembered some search terms and ended up at this page)

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/let...omment-page-3/

Consider the real-world comparison offered by Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, of two similar-sized and equipped hospitals: Toronto General Hospital and Massachusetts General.

On a visit to the 900-bed Toronto General, Dr. Himmelstein recounts searching for the billing office; it ended up being a handful of people in the basement, whose main job was to mail bills to US patients who had come across the border. … “It need not fight with hundreds of insurance plans about whether each day in the hospital was necessary, and each pill justified,” Dr. Himmelstein says. “The result is massive savings on hospital billing and bureaucracy.”

Back in Boston, Himmelstein visited Massachusetts General Hospital, which was similar to Toronto General in size and in the range of services provided. He was told that Massachusetts General’s billing department employed 352 full-time personnel — all of them fighting tooth and nail with hundreds of insurance plans, each with their own rules about how to document every item used for every patient

[flintlock]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

And don't forget all the employees on the Insurance company's end processing claims. They have to be paid also, further raising costs. Huge inefficiencies here wilh all the non-medical expenses.

Anyone with a eye for efficiency can see the current system sucks. Too much paper pushing going on. The real question is will the "solution" be any better?

[rjwjr]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

RJWR - Must admit your arguments sound among the least intelligent here. I have nothing against cowboys, guns or even pride - it's just your critique of other members contributions does not sound that intelligent or focused.

"Also, many of us are "cowboys" with guns and egos and great pride in our Country"


Meanwhile you are urging Steve to provide more intelligent criticisms.

meechpod, I guess that I should be honored that you have chosen to use your inaugural post on this esteemed site to trash my intelligence. I'm sorry we seem to have started off on the wrong foot and am hopeful that my future posts will change your mind about my contributions here.

Should you read through this entire thread, it is my opinion that you will find Steve's posts to be steeped in a high level of blind emotion that has caused him to shut-out the possibility of any other opinion. He doesn't always do this (his posts on climate change are more level-headed), but when he started a post with America (American) bashing, I felt compelled to call him out on it. Anyway, welcome to the site and I trust you and I can start fresh.

[Spartacus]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

One thing I never see discussed in the US is the incentive for insurance companies to deny renewed coverage for expensive cases. Or the pressure put on doctors to not offer various treatments. Or the simple unethical, deadly dropping of patients off the policy.

These people, being in dire straits already maxed out paying off-policy needs, are now left to pay lawyers' bills to try to get the money out of the insurance company that's reneged on its contract.

There were a couple of cases where people eventually got multi-million dollar awards - a woman who won because the insurance company illegally broke the contract.

It's as close to a miracle as I know of - she survived to sue, and won. Most in her situation don't (survive , and therefore don't sue)

And don't forget all the employees on the Insurance company's end processing claims. They have to be paid also, further raising costs. Huge inefficiencies here wilh all the non-medical expenses.

Anyone with a eye for efficiency can see the current system sucks. Too much paper pushing going on. The real question is will the "solution" be any better?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Hey, would you rather have economic collapse with healthcare or without healthcare?

Because healthcare is not going to cause the collapse nor will it prevent it. $239 billion spread out over 9 years (the cost for Obama's plan according to the CBO) is mere chump change. We've given more than that to banks in the last six months. So all this whining about the costs and "economic collapse" is a mega straw man.

So, I say, give us health care.

Well put - very well put!

[rjwjr]

Re: Obama asks the question.............

Hey, would you rather have economic collapse with healthcare or without healthcare?

Because healthcare is not going to cause the collapse nor will it prevent it. $239 billion spread out over 9 years (the cost for Obama's plan according to the CBO) is mere chump change. We've given more than that to banks in the last six months. So all this whining about the costs and "economic collapse" is a mega straw man.

So, I say, give us health care.

Except for the fact that the politicians have a propensity to be "overly optimistic" (aka lie). This from a 2005 Washington Post story in reference to Bush's prescription drug benefit...

"As recently as September, Medicare chief Mark B. McClellan said the new drug package would cost $534 billion over 10 years. Last night, he acknowledged that the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion, but he cited several major savings and offsets that he said will reduce the federal government's bottom-line cost to $720 billion." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb8.html

And this passage only quotes the $534 billion figure, Bush's original estimate was $400 billion (and as with Obama's estimate today, the CBO concurred with Bush's estimate then).

Anyway, this is not about cost for me. This is about the fact that I firmly believe that private enterprise in the free-market can do a better job with health care than can the government. I still think of this mindset as "the American way" and I still believe it to be the best way.

Ironically, I stand to garner tremendous financial benefit if the Obama plan passes. As a shareholder in a closely-held subchapter S corporation, all profits from the Company pass to we shareholders. We currently spend over $500,000 per year to provide a health plan for our employees. If we go to Obama care and eliminate our private plan, my annual income increases by my portion of the $500,000. In spite of that, I still think nationalized health care is a bad idea.