The coming debate over health care

Posted by Earl on March 9, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH BOY LETS HAVE THE FREE HEALTH CARE THAT KENNEDYS HOME HAS.
One thing we've learned from state-based experiments in universal coverage: It's not cheap. In Massachusetts, taxpayer subsidies for its two-year-old program of mandated coverage will rise from $158 million in 2007 to $600 million this year and $870 million in 2009. Lawmakers are now scrambling to impose new cost controls. On the menu: lower payments to doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

Meantime, a similar plan proposed in California died in January when the independent Legislative Analyst projected the program would cost at least $4 billion more in its first five years than proponents first suggested.

I do hope ditter who wants to model Colorado after california reads this line.
I dont care for free health care just give me free oil changes please.
BTW the democrats in the house passed the wellstone mental health equalizer bill so now all insurance has to cover mental illness and drug and booze rehab costs. if it gose to congress and passes you can bet your bottom dollare insurance is going up and then the dums will tell us its the insurance companies doing it.
now everyone who wants free health care please tell me again how it will be so wonderful. [please re read the part above about Ma before you respond] sure looks like a lot of taxes are going up to pay for that free health care.
here are hard facts for that wonderful socialized health care bo and hillbillary love so much. anyone still want it? you could go to Ma today and have it.

Posted by jboccuzzi1224 on March 9, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My understanding is that in most (or all) of the Socialized Medicine Countries :

1 There are NO Contingency Fee Attorney payments. Patients can sue and win but the lawyer gets a paycheck not a jackpot. (US Taxpayers will soon pay hospital and Dr. costs relating to malpractice insurance and the lawyers continue to prosper.)

2 An MD is an undergraduate degree and a Dr. is NOT required to spend 4 years and $100+ thousand on an undergrad “PREMED” degree before starting medical school.

3 These countries are spending billions to try to move to the quality of US healthcare. Tony Blair BRAGGED that his administration brought surgery wait times down from 18 months to 7 months. The US would find that appalling. I understand their new healthcare policy is causing even more turmoil.

4 Many of these countries allow for PRIVATE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE which brings us back to the same problem of those with good insurance get good treatment and those without get sent into the waiting line.

5 Data show that 75% of healthcare dollars are spent on 10% of the population. Doesn’t it make sense to look at the sickest among the population to evaluate “quality” of healthcare rather than "Does everyone have access to a waiting list"?

The US voters are being told a fairy tale they are all too willing to accept as fact and none of our news sources will bring out the downside of the Socialized “Medicine Show.”
Our politicians (all are lawyers) would never change the contingency fee jackpot in the US system.
Legal settlements in the US are about $300 Billion but the CHANGE IN ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR is over $800 billion which could explain the difference in healthcare expenditures in the US vs socialized countries. Malpractice Payments were 30 Billion so you can expect 80 billion in CHANGE IN ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR (ie defensive medical costs)
In the Bush / Clinton debates Clinton said “Why cant Americans have a healthcare system that’s as good as the Canadians or Germans?” Within a few weeks a NY Times articles (buried) said that 40,000 German Healthcare workers went on strike and called their system supervised euthanasia. I thought what Clinton said was a significant comment on how WE perceive healthcare in socialized medicine countries.

Posted by leftside on March 9, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“Among other things, he would allow Americans to purchase health coverage from a licensed insurer in any state; individuals could shop nationwide for an appropriate policy and compare prices.”

How would this help? It’s the same companies are offering virtually the same policies all over the United States. Insurers rate policies by geographical losses so unless you move to an area that has lower claims experience it’s not going to make any difference. Ridiculous

"He would end the tax deduction that employers receive for providing health insurance; instead, individuals would receive tax credits they could use to either purchase policies or invest in Health Savings Accounts. They would no longer depend on their employers for medical coverage."

Right, and by doing this you take away a much needed tax break for employers who want to help their employees and give employers who could care less about their employees a reason to drop coverage. Makes sense to me.

Hillary is concerned that Obama’s plan leaves out 15M people, just wait until McCain’s plan hits the market. That 45M uninsured will jump to 60M in no time at all. Of course we could all move to a town with low claims history but then that towns towns usage will go up and we’ll have to move again and on and on…….

Posted by hikingartist on March 9, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like Social Security, yet another issue/opportunity squandered under 8 years of Bush. Despite the fact that this publication endorsed him in 2000 and 2004, it seems obvious RMN realizes he is too polarlized or stupid to even attempt taking on such big (bipartisan) issues in his waning term.
Notice how everyone (even his supporters) are looking past his tenure?

Posted by dilligaf on March 9, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All I read here from rednecks like Earl is about socialized medicine. Like or not people we have a serious healthcare problem in this country. "BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS MAJOR REPAIR" Now Earl would say ignore it and if you don't have or can't afford insurance, to bad. If you get sick to bad. DIE!!!!. Well like it or not Earl in this country we don't do that. I just wish you would be uptight about Bush sending billions of your tax dollars to a country that has enough oil to buy our country. And they hate us. But like always we think we can buy love.

Posted by Earl on March 9, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dillygaf loves his moron statement to sound good.
Now Earl would say ignore it and if you don't have or can't afford insurance, to bad. If you get sick to bad. DIE!!!!. Well like it or not Earl in this country we don't do that.

now where have I ever said anything about ignoring the issue, just I dont want socialized health care. did you happen to read what Mass is paying for theirs? you and every other socialist believe that you are owed a living off the government, I dont. name a hospital that will turn you away if you go to the emergency room with an injury and no insurance. now that doesnt include the sniffles. that cant happen and you can make up all you want to show it but it doesnt happen.
btw this old redneck pays his own way which is something I am sure you as a leech would never consider doing. also calling me a redneck only shows your ignorance as to really understanding America and how it works. If it makes you and the rest of the extreme far left progressive modierate liberals feel good calling me a redneck, please do so as I could care less.

and then hikingart said
Like Social Security, yet another issue/opportunity squandered under 8 years of Bush.

sorry his program that copied the one bubba outlined in his 98 state of the union address was shot down by the ever so concerned dummycrats in congress. that was when ole teddy stood on the floor of congress and told everyone that ssi was in great shape and had Mary Jo been alive [but she died in my car] she would be receiving wonderful benefits from it.
remember all the hype hillbillary put out on how only the stock brokers would be rich from it, and now her daughter is part of them, and it wouldnt do any good for the average joe to have a personal account? and now her great program now is to establish a personal acount for the average joe but only to have the government pay for it. it seems you, the average joe, are not smart enough to know how to save, and she will help you out.

wrongside there is just no help for you. btw every state has certain mandates to increase insurance costs and by going to another state you could purchase a group program that fits your needs and would be able to cross state lines for payment.
you dont care about tax credits or exemptions unless you get a check, and also have your health care paid for by someone else.

Posted by LB on March 9, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that almost everyone ignores the fact that the USA has universal health crae. The problem is that it is based on the hospital E. R. Room. Anyone who gets within 250 feet of a hospital entrance has to be treated. So if you have no assets and are young why buy insurance? The problem is that the tax law allows only employers to pay for health care with non taxed income. If you don't have enough Sched. A deductions you can't deduct health care costs. We need to be able to set up non-expiring health care saving accounts. Maybe even alloing the interest on those accounts to be spent without taxing them. Then we could stop all federal paid heath care (Medicade, Medicare, et al.) by using something like the Earned Incom Credit with its giving less directly to the saving account as the person gets over $20,000 per person in the household, until at a higher amount the person would have to put all of the money in the account himself(as a tax deduction). This would allow all people to shop for what they think is the most effective heath care for them.

Posted by drcoles on March 9, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government caused the entire problem with health care in America by over socializing (with unfunded mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive. The government allows a monopolistic pharmaceutical environment, and the FDA a federal agency failing American citizens and needs be eliminated or completely re-organized; it’s corrupt, and is causing a major impact on the cost of healthcare in America, and we want to exacerbate the problem? http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Posted by prk166 on March 9, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Massachusetts' experience should show us that it is incorrect to frame the problem as being a lack of insurance. What matters is getting the care itself. If the employer-insurance paradigm is broken, why implement "solutions" that conform to it? How is that going to change things in the long run?

Posted by leftside on March 9, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Earl of the Cows (or is that sheep),

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are about how state to state policies will work. It would be to time consuming and I don't think you have the ability to grasp it anyway.

I actually figured you'd be against McCain's plan as it proves what I've been saying consistently in these forums all along. That being that a working man/woman who votes Republican are people who are not paying attention.

The one easy and least expensive way to get health insurance is through a group from where you work. That's why the majority of insured have their insurance through employer groups. Now, McCain decides to take one of the best benefits to the employer for providing this coverage for their employees, the tax deduction. All but insuring they will drop the group, which I don't blame them, and leaving the employees to go to indivdual plans with less benefits and a higher cost. The tax credit? Well, that's an unknown but what is known is the working man/woman well once get screwed by a Republican.

Posted by maestrokenny on March 9, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that almost everyone ignores the fact that the USA has universal health crae. The problem is that it is based on the hospital E. R. Room. Anyone who gets within 250 feet of a hospital entrance has to be treated. So if you have no assets and are young why buy insurance?

I hear conservatives all the time say that E.R.'s do a great job of taking care of the uninsured, and that the status quo is fine. In reality, the largest single cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. Furthermore they are ignorant that there is a big difference between health care and emergency care. I laugh when I hear people say that they don't want the government involved in health care, but they don't mind having insurance companies involved, when they deny people all the time. Some one tell me what good or service an insurance company provides. Are they as important as a doctor or a hospital? Actually medicare is socialized medicine. Even though everyone hates socialism, no one wants to get rid of medicare for some odd reason.

Posted by LB on March 9, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

maestrokenny If you read my post more carefully you would have noticed that I said that we should "Then we could stop all federal paid heath care (Medicade, Medicare, et al.) by using something like the Earned Incom Credit".

Posted by Earl on March 9, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok leftside of the bottomfeeders, and that includes whale crap, you are the brightest bulb in the dirt. wouldnt it be nice if you had enough welfare money to pay attention?

so oh wise one tell us why such a highly intelligent individual such as yourself needs and wants the government to support them and their needs? why will you and your socialist government not talk about giving me free oil changes? speak up as to why you need it provided free, or really on the backs of real tax payers.

Posted by LB on March 10, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Routine health care can not be made cheaper by any type of insurance.
If a service is a once or twice a year service then the system must pay for at least two people to check to make sure that the person receiving the care is in the window of when it is authorized. If this could be paid out of a saving account. The only person checking would be the recipient.
People on the universal care side of the argument don't seem to trust people to make their own decisions. They think the people need a care manager to decide when you need a mammogram or a prostrate exam. And then want to pay others to check that you're not getting them to often.
And if you think you need big groups to lower the cost this is because insurance companies know that many in the group are forced into it and rarely will use it. And should we force all businesses to be big so the ins. cos. have their big groups?
Let every one shop for their own major medical insurance and pay for normal care with cash.
The two types of medical services that have went down in cost in the last 15 years are eye and cosmetic surgery. Neither is paid for by normal insurance.

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Earl of the Cows,

Why do you insist that this is a socialist Democrat idea. All three presidential hopefuls have a plan to reform health care and help the citizens be able to afford it. All three are different except for one feature, they all three give tax credits to people for premiums paid into the plan. All three Earl. That incluldes McCain. Tax credits come from the taxpayers. Thats you Earl. If McCain win he will be giving people your tax dollars to purchase insurance. I'd say to go to all three's web pages and read all three proposals but I doubt you could comprehend what they are saying and your evidently not getting the correct information from Rush.

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LB, their doing that now. The price of insurance as gone through the roof so people and employers are having to raise deductibles so that the health insurance covers catastrophic needs and routine things are paid for with cash. It's not working because rates continue to sky rocket past what people can afford.

Posted by paulhsiehmd on March 10, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for highlighting some positive free market alternatives in the health care debate. Bills such as HB1327 (which allow the purchase of insurance across state lines) are good because they allow consumers the choice between the best offerings of all 50 states.

At a more fundamental level, such free market reforms are good because they respect an individual's right to spend his own health care dollar according to his judgment, for his own benefit. In contrast, false "reforms" (such as expanding Medicaid or imposing insurance mandates), merely raise costs, decrease access, and force more people to become government dependents, as has happened in Tennessee and is happening in Massachusetts. Bureaucrats then decide how and for what people's health care dollars may be spent, not the individual patients and doctors.

I'm encouraged that Colorado is finally discussing some genuine free market health care reforms!

For more information about free market health care reform, please see the article written by Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and myself in the Winter 2007-2008 edition of "The Objective Standard" entitled:

"Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'"

We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

The full text of the article is available online for free at:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/i...
or http://tinyurl.com/25zffu

Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia, CO
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (www.WeStandFIRM.org)

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Moral Health Care vs Universal Health Care"

What a crock Doc. Why can't you guy's call it what it is, the same garbage you've been feeding us since this debate began.

I had a petitioner come up to me last week and ask if I would sign his "right to work" petition. I asked why we didn't have the right to work? He said well its basically a the right of worker not to have to join a union. I asked, why didn't you say that in the first place. I didn't sign it because if their dishonest and playing word games I don't trust them, period.

"Free Market Health Insurance vs. Universal Health Insurance" that's the debate. If you want to be honest that is.

Posted by spencerr on March 10, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you, Leftside, that it boils down to Free Market vs. Universal.

I think the debate boils down to dueling beliefs. One side believes in mostly unlimited healthcare to everyone (which will be anything but free). And the other believes in making it as cheap as possible for the average American (which means poor and middle class must still pay for their own).

I think one side feels that society is morally obligated to directly take care of its less fortunate, while the other believes that the means does not justify, nor does it even ensure, the end. They would prefer the government to stay out of their lives and their pocketbooks. They also understand and make central to their argument that even though there are market failures at times, the market is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. Giving said scarce resources to everyone flies in the face of the fact that the resources are scarce...something has to give...it means we will all have to pay more for it.

For the most part, I think, one side is arguing oranges while the other side is arguing apples. Both sides play down if not completely ignore the other side's points.

I for one, know that universal healthcare (similar to socialized healthcare in Canada and Britain) will do one of two things; if we cap the dollar amount per capita that can be spent on it, people will be waiting and dying in lines. If we don't, its cost will balloon out of control.

While I sympathize with the middle class American who falls in the window of not having medicare/caid and also not receiving company-sponsored insurance, my focus is more on the cost to the average American, and I believe that with the right market reforms, we can check the ballooning cost of healthcare, even to the point that insurance (and its government-sponsored equivalents) for non-catistrophic medical procedures and routine care will be realized as one of the main problems and eliminated.

A government monopoly, whereby all Americans have semi-unlimited access to healthcare at all times will be very expensive, and/or service will suffer. Have you ever heard of anyone in the military actually praising their incarnation of universal healthcare? I think not.

I know that you probably don't care about my opinion, but after expressing it for several weeks, I think I would just advise that this argument stems down to two different priorities and that arguing with one another when your minds are already set about your priorities is a completely hopeless cause.

The people in the middle, most of whom do not follow these ideologically heavy pieces, are the ones that will swing the direction healthcare goes, either way, and I doubt they are looking to RMN's opinion columns or subsequent blogs to find the answers to their problem of ideological floundering.

Posted by LB on March 10, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They are not doing that now. We have all kinds stupid mandates that raise the cost of insurance, and pre-taxed dollars are not allowed to be put into Health Savings Accounts. If we had those accounts those mandates could be removed.

Posted by spencerr on March 10, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Leftside,

Your anecdote about "right to work."

I think, had I run into the same person holding a petition, I would have automatically known what he was petitioning for. It seems straight forward to me. You have to be in a union to work whatever job he was trying to get. In some states, that is illegal. I agree that it should be each individual's choice and that union membership should not be compulsory. Unions trying to protect themselves from competition mostly.

And if Dr. Whoseit believes that his argument is the moral side, that is his business. You obviously think yours is the moral argument too, though typically one doesn't have to write it down to convey that. Most people don't make arguments based on something they feel is immoral...anyway, for what it's worth, I wouldn't take those words too personally. It is a war, and your side has plenty of tricks of its own for the purpose of deceipt.

Posted by John_II on March 10, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"How would this help? It’s the same companies are offering virtually the same policies all over the United States. Insurers rate policies by geographical losses so unless you move to an area that has lower claims experience it’s not going to make any difference. Ridiculous" -- leftside

You do not understand the issue, leftside, so it is good that you are asking. But, you should not call it "ridiculous" until you understand the circumstances.

Each state sets certain health policy minimums. Some states require a certain level of health insurance that is higher than other states. This means that insurance premiums cannot be lowered in a specific state. If the customer had the option of buying cheaper insurance from another state, he would benefit. For example, if New York determined that a health insurance policy must cover certain procedures or must have a minimum coverage, a potential customer may not be able to afford a New York policy. But, Colorado may not have such a restriction, so the customer would be able to purchase a policy from Colorado even though he lives in New York.

"Right, and by doing this you take away a much needed tax break for employers who want to help their employees and give employers who could care less about their employees a reason to drop coverage. Makes sense to me." -- leftside

The tax break accomplishes two things: (a) it favors big companies over the self-employed; (b) it reduces employee salaries by substituting a portion of it with health insurance compensation. The entire point of eliminating the tax break is to cause employers to stop paying for their employees health care. This would drive employees to join private groups just as they do for auto insurance. So, an employee would not have to worry about losing certain health benefits if he decided to switch jobs.

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr, I agree that people should be free to join or not join unions. However, never being involved in a job with a union I don't know the in's and out's of either side.

For me insurance has nothing to do with morals, it comes down to benefits and cost, period.

Have you read McCain, Clinton and Obama proposals for the insurance crisis? I've found alot of people haven't and has such they think that the democrats are going to a Canadian style plan which it isn't even close. If you haven't do and will discuss it.

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnII, I never waste a lot of time discussing things with you as I feel through reading your posts that, and I've said the before, you just a lot words.

The state to state proposal is not going to save anyone a lot of money. It's smoke and mirrors put out by the Republicans to stall for one of their heaviest supporters, the insurance industry. All the Republicans since the debate started have promised to fix the insurance problem and they never do. Even when they had full control to do basically anything they wanted.

Sale it to somebody else John.

Posted by John_II on March 10, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leftside, your comments to me were nonsensical. I took the time to answer your concerns and you give me this nonsense about politics. I am talking strictly about the issue.

The reason you delve into politics when I address you is that you have no cogent reply to my comments.

Meanwhile, the comments you have posted on this thread and on another thread show a massive lack of understanding of the issue you are blathering about.

So, can you tell me why "state to state proposal is not going to save anyone a lot of money"? If that is true, can you please explain the reason why it is so? Also, do you now see why the employer tax break to provide health insurance is a bad idea and needs to be eliminated? If not, please explain your reasoning.

Posted by spencerr on March 10, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa, slow down there Leftside...I don't follow any of their plans. I don't like McCain or the other two. I will vote for McCain because I think he is the best one left. If his plan has anything to do with raising taxes or otherwise using public money, he oughtta pull down his pants and paddle his own butt for calling himself a conservative. Markets my friend. Forget taxes.

And...if you had actually read my rant, I agree with your statement to Dr.Whatchamacallit. As for morals...the second thing I posted to you and the first one don't really go hand in hand. My second post was simply to say that people don't argue for things they consider immoral.

Anyway, you missed the entire point of the first rant, or you are ignoring it. We are arguing apples and oranges here, best way to make it cheap vs. the only real way to supply everyone (universal). I ain't repeating myself.

Put perhaps a simpler way...you and yours mostly ignore the costs, and me and mine mostly ignore your desire to simply give free or greatly discounted healthcare to everyone.

Posted by spencerr on March 10, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leftside, there is even a more pure market version of what John II talks about that would help eliminate much of the cost of healthcare.

If the money that would have originally been used for insurance is instead placed into a healthcare spending accounty (roughly six thousand dollars for a family of four) and then rolled into an IRA at the end of the year, the employee would have that money exclusively for providing his family's healthcare, but if he does not use it, it becomes retirement money.

The only insurance involved would be catastrophic insurance. Otherwise, you pay out the nickel and dime flue and strep expenses out of the spending account set aside specifically for the purpose. This will drive down costs because it will eliminate a lot of demand that is caused by third party payment systems (which give no disincentive for just going to the doctor's office willy nilly). With demand down, the cost will become cheaper.

Posted by leftside on March 10, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencerr, I not ignoring your point at all, it's just that these points have been made time and time again and to no avail. I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change my mind. Has such, it's time to move on to whats going to happen in Janurary when one of three are president. When you get a chance read all three proposals. I'll guarantee this topic will come up in here in the furture and we can discuss it at that time. I feel like you will have some insights that I would like to read.

Once again, I'm not ignoring your post, I'm just tired of the same old argument.

Posted by John_II on March 10, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leftside is tired of losing the same old argument.

Posted by allseasonsfan on March 10, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know why everyone thinks this is an issue. This is an election issue only, where the candidates are making promises they have no power or intention of keeping. Insurance groups represent the biggest lobby group in Washington and they will fight most of this. Besides it is unconstitutional, even in the new constitution era after the new deal, the federal government has no power to institute this.

Besides do you want the same people who are in charge of SSA, Welfare, Education and those who purchase toilet seats for $500 in control of your health?

Posted by John_II on March 10, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good post, America_1st.

But, on this forum, all you will hear is crickets chirping whenever the constitutionality of something is questioned.

For socialists like Charles B., leftside, Old Grouch, jay, me2,anderson, mytwosense, et al., the Constitution has as much usefulness as a roll of toilet paper.