George Corneliussen
We've been complaining about rising healthcare costs for well over thirty years and not a dang thing has been done about them. As a matter of fact, this has been going on through five administrations (two Democrat and three Republican Presidents, just so you know). So, what makes us think we can do something about it now ?
Some might argue that the high cost of healthcare and low quality of healthcare service we now receive is what will finally makes us all say, " I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". I don't want to be a "party-pooper", but there are more than a few examples of us ( as in U.S.) demanding more affordable healthcare coverage in the past and of us complaining about the poor quality of healthcare service we were getting. The end result of all this "yinging and yanging" has added up to pretty much zero.
"Ah, but it's different this time; the problem is more out in the open ". Sorry, once again my old friend history says, " It ain't necessarily so". You see, we have complained in the past, so much so that almost thirty years ago healthcare was the subject of every major legitimate news service in the country. The controversy was so widespread that even "Mad Magazine" addressed the subject in the January 1978 issue ( Volume 1, No. 196 ).
No one would think of "Mad Magazine" as a news source, but it most definitely was a source of sarcastic political commentary throughout the late sixties and most of the seventies.
The cover of Volume 1, No. 196 of " Mad Magazine " features a parody of Star Wars; however, on pages 12 and 13 there is a mock-up of a Monopoly-type game called, " Hospital". It should be noted that by the mid-seventies, " Mad Magazine " leaned heavily on social satire for its content.
In this game, the first square is called "ENTER HOSPITAL". The first square past that is "ADMISSIONS", and it says " Lose 2 turns while they check your medical policy and bank balance". If you have had the misfortune to need medical attention recently, you know that the eagerness with which the person checking you in demands to know the type and quality of your healthcare insurance far exceeds the amount of concern that is shown for the medical problem that brought you there in the first place. No different than it was thirty-ish years ago.
Square number 13 of the " Mad " game says," You receive First Doctor Bill, making you feverish and delirious" . The word "first" is the operative word here. I recently had to be treated for a medical problem that required one office visit, a sonogram test at a local hospital the next day, and three prescription dugs. There were no follow visits required of me once this work was done.
My guess is that I spent a total of two hours in the doctor's office and 30 minutes the next day getting the sonogram. Within three weeks, my first doctor bill showed up. It would be the first of about six total. First came the bills that said what was submitted to the insurance company; these were followed by letters from the insurance company saying what they would and would not pay for. Finally, the actual bills demanding payment started showing up, none of which described exactly what I owed money for, just that I owed it. In the end, I owed over $1,000, out of pocket, even though I was insured. "Ouch ! Doctor, that hurt ! ".
The point being, if the history of the last thirty years is our role-model, sad to say, no improvements will be made in the heathcare system in terms of how much it costs you and me anytime in the near or distant future.
It has been reported that healthcare costs are rising at a rate of 30% a year. At that rate, disaster is just around the corner. My guess is that people will stop going to the doctor and simply hope for the best in terms of their personal health. With November elections now behind us, no real dialogue on healthcare can be heard anywhere out there. However, it is touted as a subject that needs to be discussed. What this means is that we will be promised healthcare relief, but the chances of actual change are slim to none ( there ain't no money for it, Honey ) .
The amount of money it would require to subsidize a national healthcare program just isn't there. We, as a nation, are too far in debt for there to be enough money available to subsidize public healthcare. What needs to be proven to me is that the healthcare relief wasn't just a carrot dangled in front of us in order to get us to vote for the party promising it in the recent November midterm elections. The next "real" elections will be in 2008. At the time, the next President will be voted for.
You can bet that by the time the '08 elections roll around, Iraq, while not resolved, will be headed in the direction of being resolved . That will leave domestic policies as the driving force behind the '08 elections ( barring an unseen war of some kind ). Without a doubt, healthcare will be the issue that affects the pocketbooks of the most Americans over the next two years. The carrot of healthcare relief is so attractive to us that we will be more than willing listen to politicians promise us the sun, the sky, and the moon when it comes to healthcare over the course of the next two years. But will anything actually be done about it ?
Relief from the cost of healthcare will only come if the American people demand it and, at the same time, demand that programs that defer money away from healthcare relief be evaluated and prioritized. In other words, get politicans to stop wasting our money on programs we have no say in. Once again, if history is our teacher, do not expect this to happen.
" Why is he so glum ?" you might ask. I guess it's because I keep looking at rule number 2 in the "Mad Magazine" "Hospital" game. It states : There is no "winner" when you play "Hospital".
Below are a few scans from the 1978 " Mad Magazine " ( Volume 1, No. 196 ). Feel free to smirk, and comment if you are so inclined...........................
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 134
This will put the requirement of the health care monitoring on the person that buys it.
That will also take the selling of health care insurance into a new direction when the insurance companies must think of the consumers directly as apposed to some company or other.
Requiring everyone to buy insurance will drive medical costs up and not down.
You are wrong with that statement.
I said that the person should buy the Health care, not have it deducted from their pay check.
There are many Health Care insurance companies that can service the population.
The person needs to be responsible for their own Health Care, not the state.
One half of workers in the lowest-compensation jobs and one-half of workers in mid-range-compensation jobs either had problems with medical bills in a 12-month period or were paying off accrued debt. One-quarter of workers in higher-compensated positions also reported problems with medical bills or were paying off accrued debt (13).
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
so you might have health care coverage, but that doesn't insulate you from bankruptcy.
my husband had a stroke last year and he passed away five months later. his medical bills easily approached a million dollars.
My co-worker has a sister that has lived for decades in Canada, funny hw when she really needs medical attention, she visits the USA. Seems that MRI's are a 6 month wait in Canada, mine are a phone call and an appt the following week. What about dialysis and other procedures that once you hit a certain age are no longer made availalbe to you?
Back over thirty years ago we were told that the panaceas of affordable health care was the HMO, bills sponsored by Ted Kennedy made it so, to be followed thirty years later of Ted Kennedy railing against HMO's
I seem to recall hearing a lot of Canadians make a trek to Texas when they need heart related medical care? Why so many Canucks fleeing to the US when they need immediate major healthcare?
How many Canadian pharmaceutical companies are pumping billions into drug research ? Or are they just pumping out drugs that were developed by others at others expense?
Lot of questions, probably no answers, but Americans are living longer and healthier lives than ever before, so for all the hullabaloo , we seem to be doing something right
I think you're absolutely right that there haven't been any improvements in 30 years and aren't likely to be any. In fact, aren't things getting worse as costs go up? I think we're also well past the point where most people go to the doctor when they should, even those with insurance. It's become at least as terrifying as finding yourself on trial in criminal court, with about the same level of risks.
I would envision basic coverage to be something similar to the Oregon model. Some high cost, low positive outcome procedures would be exempted. It is, in the long run, better for everyone to have a reliable and consistent level of primary basic care than it is for a very few with extremely rare medical conditions to be able to bankrupt the system. I know that sounds harsh, but it's reality. Health care should not be only for the wealthy.
There would be appreciable savings in some areas as people stopped using emergency rooms as primary care physicians. People should be allowed to purchase higher cost private supplemental insurance if they wish. As someone who has been without any medical coverage, often for years at a time, I assure you I would have loved to go to a clinic somewhere and received treatment for an illness or an injury rather than remaining home and hoping. Illegals should be barred from using the services other than for life threatening emergencies, and should be subject to arrest and deportation as soon as they are healthy enough to travel. They are a huge drain on the system. All working people should pay something into the system on a sliding scale.
I haven't worked out all the details. I don't mean to infer we soak the rich for their care above what anyone else would pay, but again they should not be allowed to opt out, only to purchase more insurance if the basic coverage is not sufficient. Perhaps there could be progressively more expensive layers of service available. The bottom line is that everyone should be ensured a basic level of health care. The Oregon model opted out procedures which had a very negative survival vs cost ratio. That's difficult, but it simply has to be done.
Before any such service could be implemented, a stringent oversight would have to be adopted with severe penalties for fraud and corruption.
I do know that we should be ashamed of being the only so-called industrialized nation who doesn't provide an affordable way for people to obtain health services at some level.
I am thrilled that I will have health care again starting the first of December after several years without it, during which I have been scared several times by illnesses and one situation that could have warranted surgery. I had already determined to just go ahead and die if that happened rather than burden my family with tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. Now I can have the worst of my problems tended to.
My wife has stage 4 breast cancer. According to the World Health Organization, her chances of surviving 5 years in most countries would be less than one in 10, in the US, her chances of surviving 5 years is better than one in 5, twice the rate. She is on vinflunine, a new drug, which, while approved in other countries is almost not used at all. The secondary drug she is taking, herceptin, is not widely available in the UK, Canada, Australia, et al, either.
It comes down to how much as a society are we willing to pay, both in fees at the doctors' offices and in taxes. Most people, when they find out the real costs of national health insurance, suffer from "sticker shock" as it's not nearly as cheap as it's proponents claim. Look at your paycheck sometime, note how much is going for Medicare already. Now at least double that to pay for a socialized medicine system.
It's tempting to say "don't get me started" on health care, but I guess you already did. I don't look for relief from the government. I believe that there is no point in demanding that the government take care of our health. What I want to demand is that the government get out of the way, via the FDA that does everything it can to keep alternative practicioners down. I want our government to stop supporting a corrupt medical/pharmaceutical industry that pulls down our standard of living and gives us the illusion that we don't have to be responsible for our own health. I know that many of us just want to take a pill to be healthy, but that attitude is killing our country.
There is a huge sub-class out there that is taking back control of health from the doctors. They visit health food stores, read alternative health magazines, eat organic food and try in a myriad of other ways to take personal responsibility for their own bodies. They still seem to be a bit off the national radar screen because we don't generally look into the issue that deeply, but they already have a lot of the answers and they are way past getting mad. They've already been there for years.
Getting sick should not mean the death of our wallets.
I have no problem with everyone buying "affordable" healthcare insurance. But, in order to do that, the first thing that has to happen is the development of a fair and just system by which heathcare costs are charged.
The "mumbo-jumbo" style of accounting that insurance companies and hospitals use has to be done away with. We are not talking about cars or houses or luxury items here; we are talking about human health. There is no way that it is to the benefit of this nation that those who can afford full coverage get it and those that can't get what the state is willing to cover.
The arguement is always made that healthcare costs a lot because of the advanced technology being used. How does that explain the outrageous cost of basic healthcare, the kind that does not require "Star Trek" quality technology ?
The answer is that providers of medical service set ALL their prices whith the intent that insurance will cover it, so they charge double and even triple for basic services.
This has led to a careless disregard for cost savings and has opened a door for blatant greed. Nobody wants a handout, but neither do they want to suffer poor health because a dentist wants $100 to pull a tooth.
Your description of Canada's heathcare insurance system sounds very practical. It makes me wonder if lobbyists for the heathcare industry here in the U.S. are behind that kind of system not happening in the U.S.
" Insurance companies have too much power over doctors "
Amen to that. Talk about one hand washing the other. Doctors beholding to specific insurance companies is a scam made in heaven.
" my monthly premium is equal to 6 days bring home pay! Its killing me! "
Two years ago, year, my health insurance company annouced that because it "cared' so much for it's customers it was going to offer a plan that had a higher deductible but lower monthly premiums. They said these rates would be guarnteed for one year.
As soon as the year was up, my rates began to climb. They are now higher than they were before I took advantage of the special offer, and I have I higher deductible than I used to have.
Here in Ohio, any raises in income many people see goes nearly 100% toward paying their ever increasing health care insurance premiums.
Agreed, the healthcare insurance issue needs to be "addressed" not just talked about. I wonder if anyone that recieves full healthcare coverage from work ever monitors the cost of that insurance, my guess is that they do not.
Years ago, I worked for a company that provided 100% coverage. Even with 100% coverage, I never went to the doctor unless I need to. But, neither did I ever wonder how much a doctor charged the insurance company when I did go.
Before I left that company heathcare benefits were reduced to a 50% copay. I can tell that as soon as money was coming diractly out of my pocket I paid a lot of attention to how much doctors were charging.
Healthcare has outpaced all other costs of living over the last twenty years by leaps and bounds.
You bring up a very good point and that is the amount of medical procedures that insurance companies flat out refuse to pay for.
When someone goes to the doctor are they supposed to research the procedures the doctor recommends and then run them by the insurance company before they agree to have them done ? That's like saying the next time your doctor recommends a procedure, you should call up your accountant and ask them if allowing this procedure is a good idea.
Common sense has been ousted by the pursuit of money.
" Seems that MRI's are a 6 month wait in Canada, mine are a phone call and an appt the following week."
I literally live several hundred yards from a major hospital. A few years ago, I woke up around midnight and was felling very bad. My wife called 911 and an ambulance took me to the hospital. The same hospital I have walked to more than once.
They ran an EKG on me within minutes. However the EKG was read by someone in India, not the hospital. Everything turned out all right, but it was a scary incident.
My insurance company refused to pay a nickel because they classified it as an "emergency room" visit. It cost me $1800 out of pocket. By the way they never found anyhting wrong on the EKG, and if I wanted a doctor to look into it further my insurance company said I was on my own, they wouldn't pay for it. I decided not to go back.
" The first thing to figure out is why the health care we do receive in this country is so incredibly much more expensive and at the same time of so much lower quality in this country than it is in virtually any other industrialized country. "
We have older family members whose health is fragile enough that they receive heathcare on a daily basis. Therefore, we see the system "up close and personal" just about every day.
What has happened is "bureaucracy" (concentration of power in administrative bureaus). There are no people on the scene of your average healtcare facility that "call the shots". These places are all managed from afar, and the people who actually satff these places pretty much have their hands tied. There is so much inefficiency it makes your head spin.
"I do know that we should be ashamed of being the only so-called industrialized nation who doesn't provide an affordable way for people to obtain health services at some level."
Would that we were ashamed. For a group to be ashamed of something they need to have at a least a basic set of beliefs that they hold in common. If the majority of us looked at healthcare as maintenance, instead of a social perk, this thing would get solved.
Sad to say, many folks like the idea of being able to afford something (even healthcare) others cannot.
" Most people, when they find out the real costs of national health insurance, suffer from "sticker shock" as it's not nearly as cheap as it's proponents claim."
That's why I say in the article that national coverage will never happen unless we, the people, demand that all government monies spent be not wasted or stolen and that the monies that are spent be prioritized.
Where do we, as a nation , place healthcare in the list of priorities for this country ?
"There is a huge sub-class out there that is taking back control of health from the doctors. "
Your situation with your healthcare coverage it very similar ours and a lot of our friends.
My wife and I are part of that "sub-class" we eat right and live right, but we'd still like to know that if we thought we needed a doctor we wouldn't have to go broke to get it done.
"Friggin Look at Canada"... you Morons!
Yet they never do. They never look at any other Country on anything. Just like with NAFTA compared to the EU. Totally blind as to what is going on even next door!
Your comments on Canada's healthcare system sound like you have great article lurking inside you on Canada's system. Please, write it and post it.
PS: As For ( "Friggin Look at Canada"... you Morons!) Maybe Neil Young will write a song with that title.
Well first of all, what I know is that we all pay for the health care.
And second if we were to choose the plan we want then we can hold them accountable for their services.
No one can hold the government accountable, therefore, it's best to remove the health care from the government and let the free enterprise be in control.
I know that it would work as that's the way the market works.
In Candia the folks wait for months to get care, and many in Canada come to the states for better care.
The free-enterprise system works great when the guidelines are fair and equal. Maybe government's role is not to administed healthcare, but it should responsible for preventing the big guys from snuffing out any little guys who might want to give us a better deal.
In Canada - Medical malpractice lawyers take legal action in only a very small percentage of the potential claims for damages for mistakes caused by those who provide medical care. Most people who are injured either do not know that their condition was caused by negligence or do not bother to make a justified claim and as a result less than 10% of those who are entitled to claim actually do so. Healthcare professionals including specialists, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, medical technicians and alternative health practitioners including chiropractors are negligent if the treatment of a patient, under their care, has fallen below the minimum standard which the medical profession regards as acceptable.
That procedure will work great in the US.
Bury the mistakes is always a good aproach for cost containment.
Currently all the people in the US one way or the other are paying for all the health care.
There is the Joint Commission for accrediting health care organizations in the US, there are four levels of accreditation and it's currently available for the public to see.
If the Health Care insurance were like Auto or life insurance one can compare as well as one could obtain information as to how these companies are.
Answer: Under the current system most people can't afford regular checkups.
If healthcare insurance providers were serious about wanting to help, they'd be actively working toward lowering their costs by providing preventive care at an affordable price. Could it be that they would rather see the big bucks of terminal illness instead ?
Well first the Joint Commission is not a governmental organization. However, Medicare and Medicaid will only do business with accredited health care organizations. And so should you as well as I.
What I am asking for will have nothing to do with the government at all except for those that need financial assistance.
The system in Canada is sorely lacking.
The model of the current health care insurance programs as well as auto insurance and other insurance companies in the US will be a good place to start.
Everyone should get their own Health Care insurance, and those that can't afford it need to get financial assistance from the state. As we already pay for it as the charity that is provided at the hospitals is paid by everyone. Medicaid is paid by everyone, Medicare is paid by everyone, and to think otherwise is just being a fool.
Several generations of Americans now, have been infected with the destructive notion that the government should "solve the healthcare problem."
In reality, the only problem that exists is that some people can't afford to say "nothing but the best." I'm not sure that's a problem.
What is it about healthcare that so changes people's perceptions about things???
You can't walk into a restaurant with 5 bux and tell the waiter, NOTHING BUT THE BEST. You can't walk into a Ford dealership with the budget to buy a Focus, and ask for a Lincoln Continental.
Why is healthcare different to these people??? There is only one answer--- EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE.
I'm very healthy and for that I regard myself as fortunate. That didn't prevent me from developing a sudden strangulated heria that required immediate surgery a few years back, or my mother from developing an inoperable cancer. Things happen.
That's why I advocate some form of basic health care. I agree people should eat right and take care of themselves. But that doesn't take care of a broken leg or a fractured skull. It doesn't stop a small child with a minor ear infection from suddenly spiking a 105 degree fever and going into convulsions during which his heart stopped. That happened to my son. He's grown and fine now, but sitting in intensive care in a military hospital sure gave me a lot of time to think about this.
There is simply no good reason why poor people should die from lack of medical care. Medical care is not just for the super wealthy. What good is having the best medical science in the world if only the very wealthy can afford it?
Reality is often ugly. There is no good reason we should have hunger, or poverty, or whatever you might suggest.
It doesn't have to be a "good" reason to make it a reality.
"The model of the current health care insurance programs as well as auto insurance and other insurance companies in the US will be a good place to start."
Remember back in the Carter days when there was a huge push to elimate waste in government spending ? It got a lot of press, but pretty much went no where. I believe that signaled companies like insurance companies that the public had little interest in monitoring costs. Since those days there has been a huge increase in what insurance companies of all types charge the public with no way for the public to know whether or not what they were being charged was fair.
If any type of health insurance is going to be the responsibility of the public to buy, there must be a system in place that prevents these companies from ripping of the public. As it stands now, health insurance is pretty much a monopoly in this country .
"Preventative Care, by the way is incouraged today by most health plans. "
Not if you're self-insured.
You can live quite nicely without the best food, car, or any other luxury items. But when it comes to "living or dying" it does matter how "affordable" the care available is.
Are you saying the current system is fine and it's only "underachievers' who are complaining ? If you are, I definitely disagree.
In my own case , I am self-employed and manage every cost in my life to the best of my ability. For instance, the car I drive is twenty years old, but maintained to the standards of of new one. This means that I have a reliable decent looking car for a fraction of the cost of a new one. This suits me just fine.
Healthcare is no where near in the same category. If you are self-employed, the only option you have for controling the cost of healthcare is to opt of less coverage and higher deductibles.
In a counrty of 300,000,00 people, there is no way on earth that everyone will have the opportunity to be employed in a situation that provides healthcare benefits or to even belong to group plan.
Treating those who don't "qualify" for top-shelf coverage as "wards of the state" is not acceptable. I don't know if your background is blue collar or white collar, but there is now and always will be far more blue collar workers in this country than white collar workers. (If the balance ever tips to white collar workers the sheer number of them will prohibit most of them for making "big money") It is the blue collar workers that are being squeezed.
It is pointless to blame the current heathcare complaining on the unemployed or those on welfare. They are such a small fraction of the total population, that they are simply not that big of a factor.
Your statement that those who take care of themselves pay the same as those who do not is an excellent one. Whatever system is put in place should reward those how contribute to reducing the burden that bad personal health habits place on the system.
" Perhaps if people weren't suing on whim our rates wouldn 't be so ridiculous. "
Remember, a large part of every settlement goes to the lawyer representing the "suer". Lawyers write the law. Lawyers love large malpractice suits, they represent big,big, money to them.
"There is simply no good reason why poor people should die from lack of medical care. Medical care is not just for the super wealthy. What good is having the best medical science in the world if only the very wealthy can afford it? "
I agree, and I would add to that the fact that people should not be made to feel like they are "second-class" citizens based on how much income they earn. We seem to be hung-up on lording over each other based on income.
Your statement that those who take care of themselves pay the same as those who do not is an excellent one. Whatever system is put in place should reward those how contribute to reducing the burden that bad personal health habits place on the system. "
At least in my state for an individual policy you DO pay more if you have health issues! BCBS implimented a plan where they will refuse no one coverage, BUT the premium is based on your age, height, weight, smoker or non-smoker and any health issues you may already have. If you are considered high risk your premiums can be up to 8 times as high as someone who is healthy! In other words, you couldn't afford it unless you were extremely wealthy and didn't need it anyway.
How does one determine which auto insurance to purchase?
The same should be done with health care insurance.
If one is self employed, can one get annual physicals?
Does the doctor inform one of the dangers of being overweight and that exercise is a benefit?
Can a you get a referral to see a nutritionist?
Can you get a referral to see a shrink?
If not then when every must purchase their own health care, be sure that you buy one that has those benefits.
Kaiser Permanente, which is an HMO open to anyone as a direct pay member, when I was there had a Medicine man on staff and would do referrals to chiropractors.
One gets what one pays for. Research is needed at times.
"It doesn't have to be a "good" reason to make it a reality. "
Neither should something be accepted simply because it is currently a reality. Yellow Fever was a reality for over 200 years. It's not today.
" One gets what one pays for. Research is needed at times. "
That's why we need to know that what's being charged is fair. I'll pay for research, I won't pay for coporate manipulation of funds that makes profits look like losses.
Does one pay for research to find the best auto insurance?
I wouldn't trust anyone but me to do that type of research.
How does one know what is fair when purchasing auto or life insurance?
One must do that themself.
As I said, the entitlement mentality isn't going anywhere any time soon--- several generations have been infected with the deadly disease of "give it to me anyway even if I don't deserve it and didn't earn it."
It will require several more generations, and probably a depression to wean America off of this "pay for my healthcare" INSANITY.
"I believe that competition would drive the cost down and that health care would cost less. "
I agree, if the insurance business, as a whole, is forced to be fair and competetive. I do not think they will be fair and competetive on their own.
"How does one know what is fair when purchasing auto or life insurance?"
Auto and life insurance is a luxury, so if you get ripped off, it's only money. Health insurance providers should be required to show where the money they collect goes, because health insurance is a necessity, not a luxury.
AMEN George... you hit it right on the button. "The end result of all this "yinging and yanging" has added up to pretty much zero."
What you left out is that the so called 'professional class' of doctors, techs, labs, and medical company employees vote too... THEY KNOW nothing is going to happen because it might cost them a Lexus payment and we can't have that.
We can ship "menial" jobs to India or import foreigners to do them here so we can keep DROPPING working stiffs wages to allow the 'professional' classes to continue the glut they've had since about 1982, but was don't have money to heal the sick...
hmmmn... and it makes a DIFFERENCE which party is in power?
SURRRRRREEEEEEE it does...
"Compassionate conservatism" really means conserving compassion.
"Free enterprise" apparently means "as long as we are free to cheat others out of their equity."
If the sign says that it's free that most folks will take as much as they can eat, then maybe a little more. However, if it's $10 bucks a scoop most will just walk on by.
However, if the Ice Cream is a buck a scoop then many might get a scoop or two.
Basically if it's seen as free it will be over used or over done or over eaten.
Health care is not something that should be reserved for the extremely rich, and that is the direction in which it's heading. It costs much more to absorb the cost of unpaid medical bills than it would to provide a decent level of care for everyone. That's one reason it costs so much to go to the hospital. They are passing along the cost of indigents who use vastly expensive ER rooms for primary health care. Also, as a person's heath fails, they become eligible for a raft of social programs. It would be cheaper to keep them healthy.
I'm not talking transplants here. I'm talking basic health care. We know it's cheaper to keep someone healthy than to fix it once it's broken. There is no reason that anyone in an industrialized nation should be without health care.
Now I fully agree with those who say it should not be free. I'm not talking free. I'm talking a cooperation between the Federal and State governments, employers, and employees. Everyone should have to pay something unless they are actually penniless and living on the street. By combining payers and forcing insurance companies to bid on large pools to spread the risk it should bring costs down. Nobody will ever persuade me that it costs $5 to administer an aspirin in a hospital, for instance.
It's unconscionable that we don't have affordable health care in this country (note I said affordable not free). It's like when we shoot ourselves in the foot by saying we need an educated middle class then pricing higher education out of the reach of most people. That is also extremely short sighted. One reason health care is so exorbitant is that the pools are artificially restricted as to size, thus increasing the risk, and allowing insurance companies to use predatory pricing.
A small business with fewer than 50 employees pays through the nose for insurance if they can afford it at all. But what if that pool wasn't 50 but 500,000?
We need health reform in this country. Ok. So that might mean a CEO only gets a 20 rather than a 30 million dollar bonus one year.
I live in a county where that didn't happen because of the health system for the poor. But, what does happen today is that those without insurance go without health care because they aren't aware or are too proud to take advantage of the country health system. This varies by county. There are some counties where the dying are just left to die.
Let's really change the health care system to provide for real competition. The market would naturally drive the cost down.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_home
I do note if you are here illegally, hospital service is free, with the cost passed on to the rest of us. Emergency rooms being used as doctors visits is common, since service cannot be refused by law. A citizen gets a bill.
Report Shows Increase in Number of Uninsured Children in New York
Health Coverage for All Children Is Urgent Priority for Governor-Elect Spitzer
The Children's Defense Fund-New York (CDF-NY) released a report today based on the most recent Census data, showing that the number of uninsured children and teens in New York grew by 61,000 in 2005, a 17 percent increase over 2004. The increase is the first in nearly a decade.
"New York can and must do more for our children. We need Governor elect Spitzer to turn his campaign promise into reality," states Donna Lawrence, Executive Director of CDF-NY. "Over the last decade, New York has made tremendous strides in providing health insurance coverage for children, but we are witnessing a decline in the gains we worked so hard to achieve. 2007 presents a new opportunity to ensure quality and affordable health coverage for all children."
In 2005 there were 415,000 children and teens living without health insurance in New York. That represents nearly 9% percent of all children in the state.
The vast majority of these children is already eligible for health insurance but is not participating. New York's complicated application process prevents many of these children from enrolling.
The remaining uninsured children live in families whose incomes fall above the Child Health Plus eligibility levels.
According to CDF-NY's report, this loss in coverage points to the state's recent slackening commitment to health coverage for all children. A number of state policy changes, including a cut in Medicaid eligibility for children six through 18 years of age, have resulted in the loss of health insurance coverage for tens of thousands of children.
In addition, the state has decreased funding for enrollment programs that enable working parents to register their children for health insurance at community settings that are open evenings and weekends instead of at welfare offices that are open only during working hours. These provisions, coupled with a decline in employer-sponsored health insurance, have also contributed to the increase in the number of uninsured children.
CDF-NY calls for new strategies to provide health insurance coverage to every New York child. This coverage proposal has three components:
(1) Extend subsidized health insurance Coverage to children in families with incomes up to 500 percent of the federal poverty level to reach nearly all the uninsured children who are currently not eligible;
(2) Implement simplification measures that would ensure that all eligible children and teens can participate in the health insurance they need.
(3) Increase funding for community-based enrollment programs
The estimated cost of CDF-NY's plan to provide health insurance for all children in New York is $ 46 million in state funds for the first year. According to an Urban Institute study, in 2005, hospitals, physicians and government spent more than $6 billion caring for uninsured New Yorkers.
The mission of the Children's Defense Fund is to Leave No Child Behind® and to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information visit http://www.cdfny.org/.
Who does it hurt? The people who can lest afford and need it the more...the premium's for people in the lower brackets are outrageously high. Oh' and in that price they neglected to include children!! And, Mitt Romney wants to be President. We are fortunate to have him out of the office of his "trying to be Governor." God help us all if he gets near The White House! Leave no children behind? He didn't even include them...
Troublemkr s, great comment as always. Sorry, to hear about the loss of your husband.
"We can ship "menial" jobs to India or import foreigners to do them here so we can keep DROPPING working stiffs wages to allow the 'professional' classes to continue the glut they've had since about 1982"
Everytime someone brings up this topic, the response from those accused is always to say that the unemployed and welfare recipients who are the only ones complaining, and they complain because they are envious of the wealthy, and want a free ride.
Yet, no one ever produces any evidence that type of thing you say happens isn't true. There should always be suspicion when the reply to an accusation has nothing to do with the subject of the accusation.
The school district in the area where I live is one of the top earning districts for teachers in the entire state of Ohio ( many junior and high school teachers here earn more than college professors do). Two years ago, the teachers in this district's high school were asked to start co-paying for their healthcare coverage. Their response was to threaten to go out on strike unless they were given not only a salary raise, but full healthcare coverage as well.
They were so arrogant in pursuing their demands that they actually told some students that they were prepared to make life as misaerable for the parents of the students as they needed to in order to get the parents to demand that the school board agree to their demands.
Many of the parents in this school district are in very high income brackets. When they caught wind that the teacher were going to mess with their lifstyles unless the teachers demands were met, they ( the parents) forced the school board to give in to the demands of the teachers.
Now, every few years the teachers ask for more and more and more. You have to extort money to make money.
That's not what I say at all, in fact I say quite the opposite. Even people that are otherwise rational, people that have worked hard all their lives, EVEN THESE PEOPLE believe they are "ENTITLED" to healthcare.
It's OBSCENE really. People DEMANDING what they themselves cannot afford.
It's PATHETIC in the extreme, people DEMANDING from the government a "safety net" of so called "affordable" healthcare.
Wake up before it's too late people. Someone has to pay the piper, EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK IT IS YOU.
"If you really wanna screw up healthcare, let the government get into it more. "
Why are we so content to look at "government" as some nameless, faceless, entity we have no control over. Maybe it's because we constantly annouce to those in power that we are helpless to influence anything they say or do that they (the goverment) has become as source of nothing.
" Basically if it's seen as free it will be over used or over done or over eaten."
I argee with the basic message here , but I've also heard this said for decades. To me, going to the doctor is something I will do only if I absolutely have to ( if it were free this wouldn't chage for me) I do not like going to the doctor.
Are we really living in a nation where the vast majority of its citizens would entertain themselves by going to the doctors if they could ? Who the heck would go to a doctor's office just for something to do ?
"A small business with fewer than 50 employees pays through the nose for insurance if they can afford it at all. But what if that pool wasn't 50 but 500,000? "
This is the kind of idea that deserves being developed.
"Let's really change the health care system to provide for real competition. The market would naturally drive the cost down. "
Fair competition would be a godsend to the healthcare industry.
That deserves repeating:
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_home
"I'm not so sure about the overall quality of health care being poor here"
One of the issues that hurts quality healthcare in this country goes way beyond the healthcare industry. Did you know that many community colleges put nursing student on a one to three year waiting list beacuse those colleges can get more federal money for other "trade' professions ? Even while hospitals are recruiting nurses from foriegn countries, nursing students here in the U.S. are being put on a several year hold at many community colleges.
Kids have no income and didn't ask to be born. There are no moral grounds for denying all kids health coverage.
"CEOs draw millions from the pool."
The argument from those who are pro healthcare insurance as a business would be that the CEO earned that money and is entitled to it. Those who are pro-government healthcare would argue that those millions should go into the pool to pay for more coverage.
Are there fine details between the two points of view ? Certainly. But, which is the one more worthy of the highest return for the money invested by participants if done right ?
Since it always comes down to money. If a citizen of this country is going to invest their money through premiums or taxes ( let's face it, even though we never get a dime back, we are investing in the insurance companies we do business with), which sytem IF DONE RIGHT would offer the higher return ?
If this system falls apart it will have an impact on our entire society. In the days when there was no such thing as healthcare, the rich lived and the poor died. Hopefully we've matured enough as a nation to realize that public health matters to all classes not just rich and not just poor.
"It's OBSCENE really. People DEMANDING what they themselves cannot afford"
So Jack, is there no need for control or reform of the present healthcare system ?
If someone's premiums go up 30% in one year and their salary does not should they just do the noble thing and drop their insurance ? Or should they insist on a 30% pay raise to cover the cost ? You don't seem to be offering an opinion on what people should do, only what they shouldn't do.
It should be free for children of families close to the Poverty level (they are aiming for 300% of the FPL) based on family size, and on an affordable sliding scale as income increases. Most people are willing to pay reasonable premiums.
Right now all states differ and kids are insured by the luck of where they were born. The Childrens Defense Fund would like to make this across the board on a national level and they want to make the system easier to negotiate because right now, it is very difficult.
Do American children deserve to be safe, educated and healthy? What if their parents fall in between? What if the parents are intimidated by the questions that are being asked in order to apply? There are many access to care issues here, too, not just income.
Allow me to excerpt from the previous CDF Press Release that I posted:
The estimated cost of CDF-NY's plan to provide health insurance for all children in New York is $ 46 million in state funds for the first year. According to an Urban Institute study, in 2005, hospitals, physicians and government spent more than $6 billion caring for uninsured New Yorkers.
Learn more about this initiative at www.childrensdefensefund.org
the current system in the US is literally drowning in waist, fraud and abuse. The food stamp program suffers the same problems..........also.......only government can clean this cess pool as insurance companies are making too much money with the current system..............that is why their lobbyists live " On the Hill" to be sure congress "Stays the Course"
We the people must demand National Healthcare and your right we would save a
L O T of tax dollars.