Glenden BrownIt shouldn’t be this complicated
Suffice to say it’s not been a good weekend around the Brown casa. Yesterday morning at the gym, under the watchful eye of my trainer, I was doing plyometrics. My foot came down in the wrong spot, I twisted my ankle and fell, painfully.
I managed to make it through the remaining 20 minutes of the workout, not putting any weight on my injured ankle. I left the gym and headed for home. By the time I got home, my ankle wouldn’t support any weight. Within a short drive of casa Brown, we have a wide number of clinics and emergency rooms. In fact, there’s a hospital within walking distance of my house - an ironic measure, I know. My insurance plan, however, doesn’t include that hospital. Nor does it include any of the clinics or emergency rooms near my house. Of the PPO locations, three were closed. That left four to choose from - though one of them was listed three times, making it appear I had six to choose from. Of the PPO clinics, one was simply not accessible - west, off the freeway, through a neighborhood I hate driving through since it’s always gridlocked. A second one was too far south and east - again off the freeway through a gridlocked neighborhood. The third was located close to my house, but in a neighborhood with few medical services - meaning it’s always swamped. So I chose option four.
Despite a people in the county, Salt Lake is relatively compact. Option four required a quick drive, hop on the freeway, off the freeway, due east ten blocks and I’m there. When I arrived, there were two people ahead of me. While I waited, another patient arrived. so there were four patients. And, based simply on the quoted copays, four separate insurance plans. That means this particular clinic has to deal with four separate billing systems, four separate insurance administrators and systems and track four separate copays. Ironically, the patient who arrived after me was there for an almost identical issue - we both got ankle x-rays - one right after the other.
Granted, I have a pretty good insurance plan through my employer and the treatment I received was certainly fine. I did not in fact see a doctor (had my ankle been broken I would have seen the doctor to discuss my options). I am more than pleased with the care I received and in fact my injury didn’t require more care than I received - a careful exam, X-rays, and finally, an ankle support and care instructions. However, the clinic now has about 30 days to bill insurance. If they fail to bill it on time, my insurance will refuse to pay. I doubt any of the other patients’ insurance plans have simliar billing requirements, but maybe they do. One of the patients had Medicaid and she was quite concerned it would cover her visit (she was a very pleasant grandma, for what it’s worth).
I’m glad I was able to get the care I got and I’m glad I have insurance. But it makes no sense that I had to drive twenty minutes. It makes no sense I had to go online to find a qualifying provider. I know the locations near my house but, you know, not in the system. It shouldn’t be this complicated to get medical.
I know its considered political suicide right now, given the influence and opposition of the various people who make piles of money of our illnesses, but I can’t see any reason why we haven’t adopted a single payer system - one that essentially says any doctor, any hospital, any clinic is covered. I know the usual nonsense opposition and frankly, I don’t take it seriously. Here’s why - we have the most expensive system in the world and yet we manage to leave a huge chunk of our population without health insurance. We’ve created an overly complicated system for delivering health care, one in which there is literally no standardization, few incentives for preventive care, and disincentives for going to the nearest provider (i.e., my insurance pays if I go to a PPO location even in a crisis, but if I go to a non-PPO, I can liable for up to 100%).
In a single payer system, which is really nationalized health insurance not health care, everyone is covered, every provider is in the system, and ultimately, we can create a far simpler system. Allow doctors and providers to run their practices as needed. Reduce paperwork, which reduces costs. Reduce costs, reduce medical expenses. Look at it this way - in our current system, every doctor’s office, every clinic has to have a person whose entire job is submitting and tracking insurance claims with up to hundreds of separate plans. If there’s one plan, one payer, you now have resources to hire an additional PA, buy more equipment, provide better care.
My point of course, is that our current health care system is radically complicated - for providers, for patients. It serves most of us poorly. It doesn’t have to be this complicated and there’s no reason it should be this complicated.
May 26th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Why is it this way? Follow the money, and get some ice.
Single payer? What are all the insurance parasites going to do for work? How will they keep gas in their Escalades?
May 26th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Mr. Brown
How is that single payer system working out for England?
“The single-payer approach, deemed “free health care” by its beneficiaries and proponents, has led to limitless and often irresponsible demands on Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), without providing a funding mechanism anywhere near up to the task”
“As the British media regularly reports, beneficiaries of the NHS all too frequently don’t get timely care; are subjected to queuing for 12 months or more; get better on their own; are sent to other countries for care; are shifted to the private sector for care; or die while on the waiting list to see a doctor or gain access to a hospital.”
“An income tax is also levied on earnings over a personal allowance of £4,535 per year ($6,467). Income over this amount is taxed at 10 percent for the first £1,800 ($2,681). The next £29,400 ($41,927) is taxed at 22 percent. For those earning more than £29,400 over the personal allowance, the tax is 40 percent.”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=414
Or Canada?
May 26th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Well Canadians are outliving Americans as a population by some 20 odd months on overall average, and since we are dead last in the modern world in infant mortality and general pediatrics, we have absolutely nothing to brag about.
Their system focuses on prevention and health maintenance, with people attending a physician on a regular basis, and thus getting the benefit of managing emerging conditions sooner. This results in far better outcomes.
Currently we are paying an average of 4300 dollars a person for health care insurance and leaving 72 million people uninsured. This data from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Canada is getting its results at a 2400 dollars per person.
Like I said, we really have absolutely nothing to brag about. Single payer offers the benefit of ridding ourselves of the parasitic for profit health insurance industry. Very much a misnomer, as “industry” implies you are actually getting something tangible for your efforts.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:24 am
To Bob S. “How is that single payer system working out for England?”
It’s only anecdotal, but my British friend and his American wife always rave about the good medical care THEY get (yes she gets free care when she’s there, too). And my Canadian friend just laughs at the American system. Bob S. and others like to perpetuate the myth that the Brits and Canucks are more unhappy with their healthcare systems than Americans are with ours. Theirs may not be perfect, but they consider it a far sight better than ours.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
It really does come down to the piles of money the insurance industry makes, doesn’t it? And this is an industry that has spent its money very wisely in the process of purchasing political favors.
Bob’s statistics are typical scare tactics used to oppose any change in our current system. It’s also important to understand that the UK has the only truly socialized medical system in the western world where the government owns all the hospitals and the doctors and nurses are government employees. Canada has a single payer system; I believe France does as well.
In terms of actual measures of health, the US is usually dead last except for spending.
I know folks like Bekkieann’s friends who have experience with other systems and have no desire to at all to go to our system. Heck, one person I knew needed surgery and waited until he visited his family in South America and got the treatment there. The US system would have cost significantly more and actually would have delivered less care - at home he got three days in the hospital to watch for complications, while here it was going to be treated as out patient surgery.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“It really comes down to piles of money”…No, not at all Glendon. Johns; suggestion to ‘get some ice’ was spot on. The notion that insurance = healthcare is bogus in many, many ways. We have an inherent healing capacity and it’s a shame to suggest that only those invested in promoting thier brand of fix-it will have any value.
Get well soon.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:28 am
In Canada the fiscal managers of districts are authorized to make investments in the stock market, funds, and safe investments above and beyond simple spending to provide care.
Their system is quite complex, and heterogenous, what they have disposed of entirely is for profit health insurance. As the field is less fiscally competitive there is far more sharing of what works between districts. This does not mean they are not trying to be more efficient or lower costs, all this is done with vigor, with the caveat that whatever is implemented as savings does not negatively impact patient outcomes.
Bottom line, our system is declining, and many now go overseas for care not to save money, though they often do, but to get better care. Other countries have expanded the medical arts, we are evolving McSickScare.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Are you clear now Bob, or do you need some more help?
Do you ever FEEL like a parrot? Do you even KNOW the sensation of thinking for yourself vs obediently repeating whatever your tribe says?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Cliff
When you stop parroting the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center verbatim, maybe you have room to talk.
Why don’t you answer the question about the Kellerman Study, that is an excellent example of rote spewing of your tribes talking points.
Care to answer the question?
Bob S.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Interestingly, when one considers that the current incarnation of the insurance industry is collusive with what is supposed to be representative government, and that this system is shortening our lives and leading to us being trod upon by those who would claim to be our leaders, you can begin to understand why our Founders insisted on the personal right to own and bear arms.
For if a fascist collusion of business and government will not yield to the will of the People, and insists on tyrannizing the People, the means of disposing of such a government of cronies if they won’t yield to elective process, is armed uprising and their physical removal.
What we see happening today between government and industry, insurance especially, is eerily reminiscent of the FILTHY CROWN and it’s licensed FILTH of crown corporations.
Long live the 2nd. The doctor of PEOPLE is IN!!
May 26th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I don’t think there is any one system that is best world wide, but the relentless push toward a single payer system scares me.
We want the government, that of the overpriced hammers, delayed road construction, slow mail delivery, etc adnaseum to run our health care system?
When there is competition there is choice, should everyone have to have the same insurance plan with the same co-pays. An 18 year with no health issues should be able to pick a plan with a high deductible because of few visits may be needed, while an older asthmatic with allergies (like me) may choose higher premiums but lower co-pays and deductible because of frequent visits.
In all things it’s about an individuals right to choose what is best for them, not what you, I or the “government” may think is best for them. Is that a hard thing to understand?
Glenden is seems upset because there was work on his part, maybe there should be a government official standing by to lead everyone by the hand in event of an emergency. Heaven forbid we have to exercise initiative and common sense. Glenden also chose to drive farther because it was inconvenient to get to the closer facilities, traffic wise. Maybe I’m wrong, but i think that the article I linked to earlier (and many more articles) talk about the long wait, lack of facilities in some areas. This is not me spreading the myth, it’s reality.
Are there good things about the systems in Canada and England, absolutely. I’m not saying don’t reform the American system, just don’t put the government in charge. How is it that everyone complains (especially here) about how efficient the government is, but then turns around and wants the government in charge. Does no one see the irony?
There are many changes that can and should be accelerated, currently there are standardized billing forms ( UB-04 and HCFA) and electronic billing and transmittal options, let’s continue that trend. But shouldn’t a doctor be allowed to run his or her business as they choose? And make no mistake, they are businesses. Or does everyone want them to be as efficient as the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the TSA? Imagine the lines we will stand in if a doctor’s office is like getting through airport security.
Other changes that could be implemented is to disconnect most insurance from employers. That started as a benefit to help out, but it may be time to let people choose an insurance plan and take it from job to job. Get rid of the lifetime benefits as an option, but each person could select the level of care and cost they are comfortable with and pay accordingly. Make it easier to upgrade and as family or situation changes so can your insurance.
This is not rocket science, I’m not saying don’t make changes, but limit the government involvement.
The simple fact boils down to this, show me in the Constitution where the government has the power to take over health insurance or care?
May 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
In the Canadian system the government is only in charge of collecting taxes and money distributed in a yearly allotment to each district, based on the petitions of doctors and medical business professionals in that district, the government questions these numbers and counter offers or agrees.
What happens next is that the professionals of that district manage those monies as they see fit. They invest, pay for infrastructure, day to day expenses, and so on, the government does not tell the regional health authority “what to do”. Many a district has invested extra monies in our own stock market.
As it is we have the most expensive health care system in the world,privately run, and it we are getting less than stellar results, and do not cover everyone. It is a national disgrace.
With any luck Bob a person is healthy when they are young and has more health problems as they age. Single payer distributes the realities of civilisation and life amongst all age groups, not just the sick. More like a family.
If someone in your family is sick, do you exclude them? Single payer also leads to more responsibility, as if for example you are a chronic alcoholic that gets liver disease, you would be placed last on any organ donor list. Though if you have the money you may be able to get the chinese to get you one after they put a dissident to death.
Lifestyle choices have consequences, and in a single payer system your habits are recognized for the costs they place on the system. Genetic anomalies are not though, unlike here, where those with genetic anomalies have a very difficult time getting any insurance once the disease is recognized.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
We do have a “Single payer system”.
Buy your own health insurance - not one of those HMO or PPO plans - just comprehensive insurance. Then you can go where you like when you are sick.
Of course, you’ll pay for the convenience.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
JD- Only those who can afford it deserve healthcare? That’s an incredibly elitist attitude!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Glendon - I said nothing of the sort.
I simply stated that if you want a “no restrictions” policy, you should be prepared to pay for it.
You don’t expect Steak Diane for $4.95, do you?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Glenden,
How many charity programs are there out there? How much of our tax dollars, in addition to the charity, goes toward health care for those who can’t afford it?
At what level do we decide someone can’t afford health care? But can’t people walk into the emergency room and be treated? Arent there clinics and hospitals that take only those people who can’t afford “health care”?
Maybe what we are really talking about is the same level of health care for everyone?
Is there fair and just that those who not only don’t but WON’T work have the same level and access to medical care that those of us who work every day?
How far do we take the “equality of income”? Should everyone be given the same house? Car? Clothing?
I seem to remember what that was called
Or should we be more concerned about making sure everyone has the “equality of opportunity”?
May 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
As a small business owner, and one who pays for my own insurance this really can be so frustrating. I have gone through similar problems, and it is obvious we will need to do something to fix this problem looming over our heads.. Some sacrifices need to be made, but at what cost?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Spencer,
You won’t get an argument on the fact something must be done but are you or other small business owners willing to put up with government controlled and ran health insurance?
I know that is a cost I wouldn’t want to pay.
No matter the start, National Health care, Universal Coverage, etc; it all ends up with the government calling the shots.
He who pays the piper calls the tune
I’m not willing to give the government that power when the other alternatives haven’t been fully explored.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Bob - if you are opposed to Single Payer, and our current system of employer based, private insurance is obviously in breakdown, what are the other options you think need explored?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Glenden
Private insurance isn’t in breakdown but it’s close. It is the combination of employer based insurance and the current laws requiring hospitals to treat everyone who walks into the emergency room.
The tendency of people without insurance to use the emergency room for all treatment is a huge problem. There is a distinct tendency for those without insurance to avoid wellness and preventive measures because they know they can be treated for little or no cost at emergency rooms in most hospitals.
I can hear the howls now, but let’s look at deregulation. Does anyone really believe that all the laws on the books are reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of health care?
Give tax incentive to businesses and insurance companies to decouple insurance from the employer. Let neighborhood groups, small & self employed business group together. Heck, how about the Boy and Girl Scouts being able to build group plans? The insurance companies want to spread the risk pool so let’s give them more options.
Technical Societies, unions, there are thousands of groups that can help form the basis for individuals to carry coverage from job to job. I know several of the societies I’ve belonged to offer benefits; one of which covers membership when I’m unemployed.
How about letting hospitals get out from the cost of covering those who won’t pay? If you owned a business would you put up with customers who didn’t pay? Why should hospitals?
How about authorizing different types of treatment centers(alternative medicince, wholistic/herbal), wellness clinics, changing hours so working folks can take kids in without having to take off work? Let the doctors focus on keeping people healthy instead of treating illness by giving them and insurance companies incentives for people not getting sick.
Use the power of the government to reduce taxes and overhead, not run the business. How much time is wasted, how much money is spent on reports just for the government?
Instead of government oversite of hospitals, how about third party certifications and audits like ISO9001:2000/ TS16949?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Bob - I believe you are misdiagnosing the problem.
Our current system is the result of an historical accident. During WWII, wage controls prevented employers from wooing employees with higher pay. But the law allowed them to compete with benefits - so employers began offering benefits, such as insurance. The problem was less obvious in the 50s through the 80s - that employer based insurance doesn’t go with you; periods of unemployment result in lacking health insurance. Your ideas to correct that are reminiscent of the Clinton plan from the 90s - creating or allowing people to create groups and cooperatives to come together to buy health insurance - which was in turn similar to the German system. It has the advantage of decoupling insurance from employment, making health insurance mobile - in that aspect, it mimics a single payer system; unless coupled with mandated coverage preventing insurers from weeding out the sick it will just relocate our current problem.
The way in which the insurance industry works serves to deepen the problem. Insurers do their best to eliminate persons with preexisting medical conditions. They do their best to not insure people with a history of heart disease or cancer. From a profit/loss standpoint, they have to. Keeping insurance private doesn’t in any fundamental way address that reality, unless we have laws to prevent insurers from refusing to insure people with preexisting conditions.
As far as persons without health insurance, they don’t participate in health and wellness programs because they can’t afford them, not because they expect the emergency room to care for them. Uninsured persons delay receiving health care until their ailments are so serious they have to get it - which means the emergency room. It’s not a matter of saying, “I’ll just go to the emergency room,” it’s a matter of saying, “I can’t afford to visit a doctor or a clinic so I just hope this gets better,” and then when it doesn’t, they have no other choice besides the emergency room.
You ask how much time and money are spent reporting for the government. Well, consider that through private insurance there is a whole private bureacracy whose job is to keep from paying for your health care. In my case, if I’d gone to the clinics or hospitals near my house, my private insurance has a whole team of people whose job is to audit such visits and refuse to pay for my treatment. The fact that I have a clinic a three minute drive from my house is irrelevant since they are out of network. My insurance has a team whose job is track who is in network and who isn’t. For comparison, look at Medicare or the VA - which are government programs which have far lower costs for paperwork etc. than do private insurers. The problem isn’t reporting to the government, it’s insurers doing their best to squeeze every last penny of profit from the insurance system.
The question of allowing hospitals to refuse to treat those without insurance raises the question of whether or not health care needs to be seen as a right or a privilege. Given the fact that US, in which it is treated as a privilege, lags behind other industrialized nations on almost every measure of health and wellness (literally from live births to life expectancy) suggests to me that we need to reconsider our intellectual framework about health care.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Glenden,
“Bob - I believe you are misdiagnosing the problem”
I’m not, I’m saying much the same thing you are, but approaching it from a different perspective; that of personal responsibility versus government intervention.
A better approach is what I suggested, individual portable coverage that can be bought when the person is young and stays with them for their life time. Where there is a business need (high risk) there will be businesses that fill that need. Making every insurance company accept anyone who applies is telling the business how to run. That’s not the job of the government; don’t like it? Start your own insurance company, buy stock and vote it. Start a non-profit insurance company.
That’s not what I said; I said that the poor usually don’t take MEASURES. And they do expect the emergency room to take care of them. Look at the eating habits, the exercise patterns, the risky behaviors of the poor and tell me that the can’t afford to participate. Walking is free, cities have low cost gyms, dietary changes - less costly than missing work. Many of the health problems among the poor are controllable with preventive measures; diabetes, heart disease, teen pregnancy, etc.
Only partly true, name a moderate size or larger town without a free clinic, sliding scale payment option, access to a county hospital. Part of it is cost, but it’s not cost of the treatment; but of loosing work, family pressures, transportation. I mentioned changing hours, locations. Most charity hospitals or county facilities have clinics but can’t get people to use them. In talking to folks who work there and at emergency rooms, one of the main reasons given for the emergency room visit — didn’t want to wait for treatment. People know hospitals will see them quicker in emergency rooms than they can be seen in a clinic.
Your original post mentioned several ‘in network locations’ that you didn’t use for the inconvenience of the location. The out of network location was still an option, you would have just had to pay more.
This is a red-herring; it’s not a matter of right or privilege but of free or not. Isn’t that the real root issue? The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn’t note mean free health care. If I can’t afford a 1.5 million dollars mansion, should one be given to me? No. Is it the governments job to provide free health care to everyone? No.
Where does the personal accountability begin? If you have a job that doesn’t have benefits or doesn’t pay enough to get insurance; get a better job. Use some of the money spent on cell phones, cable tv, alcohol or cigarettes. Everyone has access to health care in this country.
If you or others feel that health care should be provided for those without the money to pay for it, great. Use your money not mine.
Name a city of moderate size or better that doesn’t have multiple free or low cost clinics or charity hospitals.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I don’t know that it matters whether health care is a right or a privilege, or whether the poor are reckless or victimized. The fact is that we live in a community. A very concrete example of that community is the fact that my kids are exposed if someone in the class has chickenpox or that I’m better off if my fellow driver is on his seizure meds.
A more abstract example is that our community has made a decision not to live that low on the Maslow chart. This is America and we don’t let the indigent die on our hospital steps. I believe that, if not our standing in the world, then basic decency compels this decision. I suppose a genuine libertarian wouldn’t.
But that question is not really before us. It’s a fact, and the cost is subsidized by the taxpayer one way or the other. So, I don’t have to like my neighbors or have any particularly lofty ideals to recognize my self-interest in a health system with more meaningful investment in prevention rather than catastrophic care.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Astrodon,
I think that it matters a great deal if it is a right or a privilege. It defines the responsibility that each individual, society and the government has to that issue. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t have a right to a life that is free of cost or responsibility for my health.
I agree that we live in a community, but the basic right to life that I support does not mean that I support everyone’s right to free health care.
That is what the call for “universal coverage”, “national health care” is about. Libertarian or not, I don’t want the government taking my money and deciding how to spend it. I don’t want my neighbors deciding how I should spend my money.
The right of every person to earn wealth has a downside; not everyone will want to earn wealth. Some folks don’t want to or won’t earn enough for their own care; should society support those people?
For those that can’t earn enough it’s a different story, but again it should be voluntary, wouldn’t you agree?
Another aspect is the right to decide how to spend the money that is earned. Every notice how those who call for feeding the poor, universal health care, free college education, the social program of the month, etc, aren’t usually living on the same amount of money as the poor? Do you see the folks like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton living on the median income for America; $48,201.00 for 2006?
Nope, why not? Because they don’t want to give up control of their money, just make folks like us give up control of ours.
Group insurance subsidizes health care expenses by averaging the premiums over the group members. I’m all for reforming health care as I mentioned earlier; just not governmental control or involuntary participation. Freedom to choose and all that.
Bob S. (darn computer updates- I was logged in this morning)
May 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Bob S,
Sounds like you are going for an A+ from the ghost of Milton Friedman.
Didn’t anyone tell you? Turns out he was wrong. Unfettered free enterprise does not work. No real surprise. Pure greed, or self-interest (individual responsibility as you call it) is a corrupt rhetorical strategy designed to get people like you to accept your lot in life.
btw: Ronald Reagan ran up the biggest debt in modern history (except for Bush). So high that Bush 41 was forced to raise taxes. I’m guessing this comes as news to you.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Cliff,
Stop trying to be insulting, you aren’t very good at it.
No where did I say unfettered free enterprise. Prove it otherwise. I’ve spoken of relaxing laws and regulations, easing the bureaucratic stranglehold on hospitals, allowing business to fill the need, communities supported hospitals, etc.
What I really want is freedom from those trying to run my life in the name of “doing good” or improving the community.
As far as free enterprise, I consider it far superior to the totalitarian schemes offered up by so many others.
Care to go back and address a few issues on the gun control posts, like the Kellerman study? Or are you going to ignore using flawed data in your attempt at propaganda?
Bob S.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Bob S is so worried somebody is going to get a dime of his, he’d rather step over dead children in the streets. Americans, including very rich people have said many times, they would agree to have their taxes raised if it was for the good of the country. The only people you see on your television are those pimping tax cuts no matter what.
There are few things that would give Americans more peace of mind then to have single payer health plans dispensed with health in mind as opposed to profit. That’s as simple as it gets. The doctors want it. The profiteers don’t. I’ll go with the doctors.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Larry,
You are putting words in my mouth that I have never said. I have stated that if someone is concerned about it to use their own money, not mine. I have the right to use my money where I choose. I have never stated that I don’t support or help with worthy causes.
Have any proof as to your claims about people being willing to pay more in taxes? I guarantee I’ve never said that. By the way, if you are willing to pay more in taxes, are you doing so now? Are you and the others so concerned about healthcare voluntarily sending in extra money to Uncle Sam?
Again, any data to support this claim? Most people do not know what it would entail to have a single payer system so how can you know it will give them peace of mind?
Also, any system is going to limit health care in one fashion or another. Check out the trends in England for proof of this. No system is perfect, but having the government in charge is the answer.
Do you really want the organization that mis-managed the response to Katrina in charge of health care?
The same organization that can’t control production costs on military equipment?
How many hospital companies do you own stock in? Why not buy stock and vote for the current hospitals to reduce their profits and provide additional services to the needy? There are thousands of ways to avoid stepping over “dead children in the street”. All I’m saying is before you or others force a “dime” out of my pocket, use those means.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Bob S,
You asked,
Most Support U.S. Guarantee Of Health Care
…one of MANY studies thatcame out the same.
This is a classic example of why you are a parrot. You care not what the truth is. You simply care to validate your fucked up view of the world.
If you had been paying an attention at all, you would have already known most Americans want universal healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes.
It ain’t to hard to find the MANY surveys that that confirm, Canada, England and Europe ALL prefer their health care to ours.
You are a strange person aren’t you?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Bob you are buying into the conservative lie about government. The Bushies and their Republican allies in congress don’t give a tinker’s damn about running government well. So they’ve treated it like a patronage machine - giving cushy jobs to incompetent cronies then looking all surprised when New Orleans floods. (The tide of accounts of Bush Administration appointees overruling competent civil servants in the cause of politics makes me wonder what will come out when Bush is out of office.) But, the incredibly bad performance of the Bushies while in government has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They claim government doesn’t work, they get a chance to run government, they do it with such utter incompetence that it “proves’ their argument is true.
By contrast, previous administrations have made competent civil service a priority and have demonstrated that government can be effectiv and efficient. The Clinton Administration made reforming FEMA a priority. Under Clinton, FEMA became a model federal agency - responding quickly and effectively to natural disaster. Run by dedicated professionals, FEMA did what it was supposed to do and did it well. You can say the same for any government agency - staff it with professionals, trust their judgment, follow their recommendations and don’t interfere with good policy and you get a government that runs well and does what it is supposed to do.
The Bush administration has done the opposite - treating the entire federal government as some sort of political operation. There are accounts of scientists having their reports edited by political appointees with no training in the area simply to make their reports conform to Bush political goals. Look at the justice department - Monica Goodling is a graduate of Regent University - one of the lowest ranked law schools in the nation and was responsible for reviewing the work of Ivy Leaguers with decades experience. The woman was marginally literate and she was supposed to somehow evaluate lawyers. But she was a blindly loyal political appointee.
The Bush administration has done everything wrong with regard to the simple tasks of managing government. That’s not an argument against government - that’s an argument against BAD government.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Glenden,
I’m not buying into anything but my own observations and experiences. The bulk of the civil service personnel don’t change between administrations; mostly the top level political appointees.
The very same workers in FEMA under Bill Clinton were still there for Katrina. Get over the Bush Derangement Syndrome, government agencies have been inefficient for longer than anyone wants to admit.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Bob - Nice use of right wing talking points. Unfortunately, the civil service can’t act on its own; they make recommendations, they prepare contingencies, they run the day to day stuff, but it requires decisions from the political arm of government to respond to crises - leadership no one in the Bush administration has ever provided. Katrina was a failure of leadership from the start - the actual professionals had been warning there were potential problems with the levees and somehow none of the Bushies gave a big enough damn to listen to them.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Cliff,
Point taken about the taxes, but this not universal health care. Britain and Canada have universal health care. This simply states that the people would prefer to see people with health insurance than cut taxes. A big difference is that under the health insurance most people would still be paying part of their premiums, co-pays etc. Not having the government pick up the tab for everything.
Wrong again buddy - from your same article.
Doesn’t look like most Americans want even a national health insurance program, less than half do.
Yes Cliff, I am a strange person. One who thinks for himself, regardless of what you say. I see you mindlessly repeating the talking points more than I do.
Care to address your repeated lifting of talking points from the Violence Policy Center?
Yes, I’m a strange person. I care about my fellow American but I don’t want you or anyone else demanding that I give up my money to support them. If and when I choose to do that, I feel I should make the decision of when, where and how; Not you.
Yes, I’m a strange person. I want the government to do what it is obligated to do and no more. The government isn’t the fix-all-problems tool that I see advocated so often. It should do those things listed in the Constitution.
Yes, I’m a strange person. I feel that if people feel strongly about it they should take action. Remember that personal responsibility that I mention often. I also feel that our current welfare system isn’t helping people up, but keeping them down.
Giving the government more power only keeps that in place.
Has the “war on poverty” reduced it? How long has that been going on, since the Johnson administration, right? How about the “war on some drugs”? Working as well as Prohibition did in the 20s.
Feel strongly about health care for the needy? Gather up some like minded people and open your own clinics and hospitals.
How about starting a scholarship fund for new doctors, with the requirement they practice for 2 years at a free clinic? Have you paid someone else’s health insurance premiums?
There are thousand solutions that I’ll support - government controlled or ran national health care isn’t one of them.
By the way
Nice way to show your education and command of vocabulary, I think my 9th grader is able to express himself better without resorting to curse words.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Glenden,
Nice use of the left wing talking points. How long have the issues with the levees been known? Since before Bush right?
How about the fact that it was a Democrat in charge in New Orleans who didn’t exercise the leadership to follow the city’s own evacuation plan?
How about the fact it was a Democrat in charge in Louisiana that failed to act in time to request Federal assistance?
It doesn’t matter which party is in charge, something I’ve said repeatedly but isn’t getting through. Does it make sense than to put something as important as health care under the government when the parties in charge could change every 4 years? No, it doesn’t. The change in priorities, focus, leadership would be very disruptive to the smooth operation. See your examples of Katrina.
What is hard about understanding if the government can’t function well on areas it’s required to handle like levees, national security; to realize it won’t be able to handle something like health care.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Ah Jesus, I can’ t tell who is the dog, and who is the pony, in this dog and pony show.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Bob says:
I want your dime Bob.
Give me your dime, Bob.
I’m coming to get your dime.
In fact I want ALL of your dimes. All of them! Give me all your dimes Bob!
AAARRRHHH!!!
May 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Larry,
I’m bound by my principles and values to advise you before you come for my “dimes”.
I am a firm adherent and practicing supporter of the 2nd amendment. Before you start something, make sure you have the rule of law behind you :)
What is your thoughts on the discussion so far, besides heckling me?
May 30th, 2008 at 12:52 am
OK, I’ll get serious.
I saw a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, the world’s largest investment bank founded in 1869, with Bill Moyers a while back. He was a billionaire, but I don’t remember his name. He said he wanted to pay more taxes and lots of his rich friends felt the same way. Cliff gave you a good link to back up my assertion that lots of wealthy people think the current system is crazy.
If you’ve seen Michael Moore’s film “Sicko” then you heard Nixon with your own ears expressing delight upon hearing of a plan that would prevent Americans from getting good health care. This was the birth of the HMO plans we now use.
The sad reality is that with Bush in office, there is no chance that a good government plan could work. An efficient, well run government plan could work wonderfully, but Bush is incapable of appointing somebody with integrity in the office. That’s why I think every organization in America should stand together for his impeachment. Literally every government program and every private business would benefit from such an action except the shortsighted and voracious albatrosses that have had their day in the sun for way too long.
Bush is always talking about how small business is the engine that drives American enterprise. Can you imagine how much better a start up business could do without even having to think about the burden of providing health care insurance to it’s employees? I’ve worked for huge corporations that changed their coverage every couple of years because the plans were too expensive.
The system is just plain broken! Raise my taxes! Support the troops where it counts!
May 30th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Larry,
Want your taxes raised? It’s simple, give more money to whatever level of government you desire. No one is stopping you or that billionaire or anyone else. Here is where that personal responsibility comes into play along with the right to do with your money as you want, give away. I’ll even support a tax break, the higher percentage of your money you give in taxes, the less you are required to pay.
But what they billionaire and some many others want isn’t to raise just their own taxes, they want to raise everyone’s taxes. So that everyone can pay their fair share, but who gets to determine what a fair share is?
Call me extremely skeptical but I don’t see any efficient well run government plans? National security–how secure is the border? Military procurement- yeah right? Welfare- how many generations are growing up with nothing but welfare as income? Mission creep also, does anyone remember the original purpose of the Social Security program?
The last aspect of a government program is where in the Constitution is the authorization for such a program?
I’m all for reforming the system, making improvements in healthcare, etc. Just not with the government running it and what will be ever increasing tax dollars.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Bob S,
Can you name any country/economy that has been successful following the Milton Friedman school of economics.
He is btw, the father of the bogus low-tax, small gov’t policy you are parroting.
IOW Bob. Either SHOW ME and EMPIRICAL evidence the model works, or admit you are advocating a economic philosophy that has ALWAYS failed.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Cliff,
I’ll try to answer your question but I think it is a straw man argument for a couple of reasons.
1st no country or economy has ever been ran solely on the Friedman School of economics so it would be difficult to show it’s success.
2nd, I wasn’t aware that I was advocating a particular economic theory. I fact I wasn’t, I was arguing on the basis of personal liberty and responsibility.
Regardless of your repeated claims that I’m parroting this or that philosophy or talking points, I am expressing my personal opinions.
Since I am not the one advocating a burden on my fellow citizens, it really isn’t up to me to prove that something works or not. Shouldn’t it be up to the people advocating for government programs to prove it works before they burden an entire country?
As far as things failing the predominate philosophy, for those advocating universal health care, has been one of a totalitarian government. Care to show where one of those has been anywhere nearly as successful as the USA with it’s mix of economic philosophies?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Zimbabwe…..
I’m pretty sure that Zimbabwe has free health care. No?
Hong Kong
Estonia
The United States
How ’bout you, Cliff, show us, using empirical evidence, that it doesn’t work? Or are you just “parroting” some other sage thinkers?
Do you have evidence that any other economic theories “work”? Are you a Keynsian, Cliff? A Marxist? Do you prefer the views of former Enron advisor, Paul Krugman? Do you understand economic theory at all? Got any credentials on this one, Cliff?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
jd:
I am entering the fray late on this one, but my guess is that no “pure” style of economy works. Pure socialism is doomed to fail, as is pure free market economics. Gotta have the appropriate balance to make things work.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Albert -
Bingo.
Thanks for the balance.
jdberger