Assume for a minute the country adopted some kind of system where everyone had adequate health care coverage. Don't focus on the care aspect, think about the economic benefits. - If employers had to shoulder less of a burden, would they spend more on R&D or wages? - If workers no longer felt compelled to keep a job because of the benefits, would there be more movement in the job market? Would wages rise as more people were free to pursue other options? - Would more people start their own companies knowing their family had health care? - If families had to spend less on health care, would they invest or save the cash they had been spending? Or would they spend it on other things? If $600 a person is supposed to jump start the economy, what would even greater savings in health care do?
5 to 10 years after we have uniiversal health care, we stop making jokes about englishman's teeth. austin powers won't be quite as funny anymore. hook'em
You're paying for it in one form or another right now. If insurance rates continue to rise at more than twice the rate of inflation, more people will go without insurance. And you'll end up subsidizing their treatment through higher taxes anyway. Meanwhile, the insurance companies continue to cherry pick their customers, forgoing bad risks -- the ill people who need treatment -- while racking up billions of dollars in profits. It would be better if those profits were put back into the system to provide health care coverage for all. The insurance industry is a prime example of the ruthless efficiency of capitalism and free enterprise. There is no national oversight and they continually take more while providing less. Because of their abuses, there will be universal health care of some sort soon.
Your costs are rising faster than theirs. That's why their profits are going up. You can't see the conflict of interest? People have health insurance in case they get sick. If they get sick, insurers cancel their policy or charge outrageous premiums. The insurance companies are fast making themselves useless. People have property insurance to be reimbursed for the loss of their property, but in the advent of a claim the insurance companies have a policy of > Delay - hang onto the money as long as possible > Deny - deny the claim or offer less than a full settlement > Defend - if they refuse the low-ball offer, make 'em fight you in court
So Ag is here to tell us that someone who contributes toward making a problem worse is really not part of the problem at all. Talk about fascinatingly twisted logic, that's it.
As someone who has had business-provided health care (h/c) for most of my life, but has had either COBRA or personally-paid h/c for the last 5 years, I believe the concept of universal h/c is nice, but here are some things that I think need to be changed that would really make a difference and reduce costs: - H/C is purchased by the individual. No more getting your h/c via your employer. This way there will be greater job mobility. Also, it should remove the risk of going to work for a startup or small business (which are the source of most jobs in the US). Most startups don't make it and you're screwed when they shut down. If your employer wants to subsidize your h/c (like today, but just hidden from you), then fine. I buy my auto insurance this way, why not my h/c. - The h/c insurance market becomes nationwide. I should be able to buy my h/c from the provider that best meets my needs. Sure, some providers will cherry-pick, but if there's a profit to be made, somebody will ALWAYS enter the market for riskier customers. For example, State Farm "cherry-picks" for car and home insurance, but there's always GEICO, eSurance, or some ethnic-targeted provider for higher risk, lower income, or underserved categories. Competition will ALWAYS bring down prices. Right now, there is not enough competition. - Do not let the government provide my h/c. The stories from Canada and the UK speak for themselves. - Eliminate state regulations that prevent drugstores and Wal-Mart from operating primary care facilities (which currently have licensed nurses, doctors, and PA's). These have proven to be very effective (and efficient) in providing convenient, cost-effective primary care to moderate income families. The politicians who are blocking these efforts are being pressured by the doctors' orgs who don't want the competition. (And, I come from a family of doctors, so I'm not anti-doctor; it's just the reality of the situation). For the last 40 years, I've seen a variety of industries transform from monopolies or govt-provided or heavily govt-regulated to the free market. In all cases, consumers got more choices, greater control, and lower prices. For example: telephone service, airlines, trucking, shipping packages, investment accts (IRA, 401K, etc), banking, travel planning/booking, etc. These markets aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than before.
My thing is, the system can't work if we treat everything. There is probably some disease that can only be cured if we take all their blood out, and let it orbit for 24 months, at the cost of tens of millions. At some point if the treatment is too expensive, you have to decided between cutting other services, or not providing a very expensive service even though it would be technically possible to treat. Who wants to make that decision?
Walmart is good for colds and urinary tract infections. They have yet to prove they can be good at primary care. Of course, our whole system has yet to prove that we are any good at primary care versus the rest of the industrialized world.
If you want universal healthcare, go to Canada, Britain, or Austrailia and check it out. I have friends in all 3 countries. this is what will happen here. Rich people will continue to get healthcare, they pay for it out of their own pocket. Poor people cannot get in to see a doctor. The wait on avg is about 6 months to see a specialist. If you need a transplant of any kind, you are f*cked. Also, the level of care in this country will drop. Doctors go through a lot of crap as it is when treating patients, the silver lining is that they get paid a lot. Less people will be going to medical school because the pay levels will decrease except for those doctors that have a practice treating wealthy people. My hope is that if a dem wins it is obama. he is the only dem with some form of common sense on the issue. his plan is to allow for affordable health insurance for poor people instead socilaizing the industry.
also, there is no hidden economic benefit, our tax rate including that for the middle class will go up to 50% to pay for it.
I have decided to take the day off from Heath Care funding reform and educating you people about the macroeconomic implications of maintaining the current structure of universal healthcare, what drives the costs, and the total balderdash contained in General35's rehash of old GOP campfire tales, especially as they pertain to Australia. I think zzzz is framing the issue up exactly as it should be framed up- not as a question of access to affordable policies but rather economic consequences of a system that, perversely, rewards overhead but penalizes service delivery except in it's most critical and expensive customer touchpoint, where economic incentive resumes. The incentive structure extracts value from our economy and works against economic growth. Very well done, zzzz.
general, The stats just don't back you up. Every single advanced industrialized nation has better healthcare ratings and a longer lifespan than the US. Every single one. It also doesn't have to be through taxes. It can be premium based. Of course, the poor and elderly will have lower premiums, if any, but that's nothing we don't have already. The advantages will be in having everyone in the same group, no profits being drained off, and claims adjudication through administrative law. Also, nobody will be denied coverage. No pre-existing illnesses, etc. The profit motive needs to be removed from the health insurance industry, and everyone needs to be allowed in, especially the most ill.
The stats just don't back you up. Every single advanced industrialized nation has better healthcare ratings and a longer lifespan than the US. Every single one. _________________________________________________ Well, my personal observations would differ with you, although I am biased, I never go anywhere but the medical center in houston and i have visited hospitals in many other industrialized nations and they suck. now, say someone visited a hospital in louisiana...then i would agree with you... I am not going to agree with every single UN statistic, i think they are biased. however, you are correct about lifespans, however, this has more to do with healthier diets than healthcare i believe. all i know is what i hear from these people in foreign countries and they all think their systems have been a disaster.
What's sad to me is that so many don't understand how Insurance companies make their profits? They have but several ways. Negotiate lower prices *what was forbidden in the Bush Pharmacy addition to Medicare). They enroll people who do not use their services, or low risk patients. Deny coverage. that's about it., or simply raise their prices to increase profit margin. Not understanding that those without insurance get health care albeit the most expensive care available that is either paid for by taxpayer dollars OR rolled into the costs of medical services for everyone else. Luckily since the Insurance companies don't enroll high risk patients those patient are shifted to the same "roll the costs in" for the medical provider. Medicare is far more efficient than the private insurance industry, as has already been pointed out. What REALLY sucks about the Insurance industry is that the only really good insurance is through a larger employer in most cases. Otherwise a single catastrophic illness can result in the dropping of the policy for the individually employed or small employer. I think that more jobs would be created. I think that for some folks (myself included) I couldn't hire somebody and not have insurance available for them morally, because I wouldn't be paying them very much.
