The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much

[William33 110]

Rogue....

Being Christmas and all, that now invisible post will slide.

Be nice.

WOW! im bein watched! Willie you like this song? I had it up from ex-pats! Merry xmas Pal!

I prefer the following:

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I like that willie!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm not against a public healthcare system so long as private healthcare remained an option.

The main problem with government-run healthcare isn't the inherent quality (or lack thereof), but the necessary funding. If healthcare is provided by the government, two things might need to occur:

1. Raise taxes

2. Direct funds away from other programs to healthcare or at least, minimize the funding to other programs.

Without doing both, government-run healthcare would remain inadequate. Seeing as how most people are against higher taxation, the first option probably wouldn't happen. The second wouldn't be too bad (in theory), but our quality of life may suffer for it.

For instance... what if funding had to be redirected from immigration, public works, education, defense or welfare? Some of those programs we each may care about more than others, but the fact remains that some program (or programs) would have to take a hit to their spending capacity.

Perhaps one way to afford a public healthcare system would be to legalize certain drugs and prostitution. Although both of those are frowned upon by the general public and law enforcement, the tax revenue generated from each might help -- or even be sufficient on its own -- to cover the cost of a nationwide healthcare plan.

[NickD 202]

How are group rates set? Simple, add up the claims they paid for the last year and multiply that by 1.3 and divide that by the number of members in that group. That 1.3, a 30% markup can vary from insurance company to insurance company and can be much higher if the insurance companies crystal ball shows more claims for the next year.

We can stick with private health insurance companies, were very good once, but just like the banking industry, they do require government regulation that was killed with Reagan, and augmented with the Bush's and Clinton. Getting out of hand today. Bottom line is that when you go in, with or without insurance, you have to sign your life away as you are personally liable for the bill. Whether your insurance covers it or not.

Some doctors and dentist are crazy, if you pay cash, you charge you twice as much for the exact same procedure they will charge your insurance company for. Some medical organizations have set up a cash only system is that far cheaper. And going to a doctor is much like dropping your vehicle at a shop, you want quotes first before giving the go ahead for a repair, many people do not get quotes. I sure did with that I-693 thing for my wife and step daughter, got quotes for the two of them ranging from $600 to $6,000 to fill out the same exact form! Ha, had to get up early and drive them a couple of hundred miles, but that day saved us 5,400 bucks, and that was an out of pocket expense. Some doctors offices insisted they do a lot more than what the I-693 wanted to really compound that bill. Of course, all these doctors were USCIS approved.

Some things do not make sense, sure we have inflation, and while many additions have been made to our hospital over the years, much of the original hospital is still there. And a room, exactly the same as it was 30 years ago that cost 30-40 bucks a night now costs 2,000-3,500 bucks a night. Same with office visits, was a flat five bucks for something simple like an ear infection, today can cost 450 bucks for the same kind of visit. Go in, my ear hurts, doc peeks in, yes you have an ear infection, hands you a preprinted prescription, and billed 450 bucks. Like the USCIS, if it wasn't for the half a day wait, would be in and out of there in two minutes. But the doc has to write up a whole bunch of stuff now for that visit to protect himself.

Ha, when my last kid was born, about 23 years ago, didn't care if I had health insurance or not, from prenatal to delivery was under 500 bucks, today about twenty times that price, and doctors were very rich back then just like they are today.

Do have three doctors and a pharmacist in the family, don't talk about business that much, but when we do, they spend more time fooling around with insurance companies than anything else. And from the time they do a service, have to wait as long as nine months before they get paid.

I really don't have the answers, but they did know how to operate efficiently some 20-30 years ago, today, it's one of a hell of a big mess, and an expensive one at that. All they have to do is to go back 30 years and see where they went wrong.

[symbiosis 0]

By Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium.

A common thread is emerging in the right-wing response to health care reform. Its opponents aren't claiming that public health care will be bad. Rather, they are terrified that the new system will be so good that no citizen would buy expensive private insurance -- or vote for politicians who wanted to take public insurance away.

Barack Obama's team is sending clear signals that health care reform is a core economic issue, and the health insurance industry is becoming increasingly anxious by the future administration's determination to bring health care costs under control. Some Americans are seeing their health care premiums rising at four times the rate of inflation, if they have insurance at all. Health care reform is a pocketbook issue for all of us, according to the Obama team.

In tough economic times, it might be tempting to postpone health care reforms, but Obama is adamant that delay would be a false economy. In the American Prospect, Joanne Kenen and Sarah Axeen support claims about the high cost of doing nothing:

A recent

report

by the New America Foundation's health-policy program estimates that the cost of doing nothing about health care, including poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured, is well above $200 billion a year and rising. That's enough to cover the uninsured and still have some left over for other public-health needs.

If health care costs continue to rise at their current rates, it will cost $24,000 a year to insure a family of four by 2016, an 84 percent increase from today. At these rates, half of American households would have to spend at least 45 percent of their income to be insured.

In the Nation, Willa Thompson describes how a bicycle crash made her appreciate the connection between health care and politics. Thompson was 21 years old when she suffered major injuries after a collision with a truck. Luckily, she was covered by her parents' medical insurance until she turned 22. She later realized that if she had been just a few months older when the accident happened, she wouldn't have been able to pay for her medical care.

We all agree that something needs to be done. Let's briefly review the options that have been proposed so far: Obama wants to provide health care for all by requiring private insurance companies to cover everyone, and he wants to create a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. The second part of his plan, the public option, is what Republican opponents are so scared of.

Insurance companies love the idea that we will all be forced to buy their expensive product; they're not so keen about competition from the public sector.

Ezra Klein writes, "If you're looking for the coming fault line on the left of health care politics, keep an eye on what happens to the public-insurance option in the health reform bill." Will the public plan survive? Not if the Republicans and the insurance lobby have anything to say about it. As evidence, Klein cites this passage from a recent article in Congressional Quarterly:

Mark Hayes, a Republican health policy adviser to the Senate Finance Committee, said Republicans have concerns because the government plan might have access to price controls and other tools not available to private insurers. This could lead to lower premiums in the government plan, which would cause most consumers to migrate out of the private market, he said. "Over time, the effect the government option could have [is an] erosion in the private market, [making] other choices not available," Hayes said.

The consensus among progressives is clear, the public plan must prevail. In fact, many advocate going all the way to single-payer health insurance. Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee argues in the Progressive that Obama and Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary, should opt for single-payer health insurance. Now is no time for piecemeal solutions:

Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and, in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama administration.

Klein links to a candid post from the blog of the right-wing Cato Institute, wherein Michael F. Cannon argues that blocking Obama's health plan is the key to GOP survival. Why? Because, history shows that once people start getting good health care from the government at a price they can afford, they want to keep re-electing the politicians who make that possible. Cannon calls the phenomenon where people re-elect governments that give them good health care "becoming dependent on the government," we call it "voting our self-interest."

In other health care news, public-health advocates are not pleased about rumors that Obama may ask Mark Dybul to stay on as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator for the first year of Obama's term. Dybul is responsible for implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which funds AIDS prevention and treatment in 15 poor countries. The advocates say that Dybul, a medical doctor, is too focused on medical interventions and behavioral changes for individuals and not sufficiently concerned with broader public-health initiatives.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on health care, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of the Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Lindsay Beyerstein is a New York writer blogging at majikthise.typepad.com

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/114...ke_it_too_much/

Yes, of course they're afraid that no one would want to do away with it. How else can you explain their repeateded smearing over the years of the British and Canadian single-payer systems? We're told that those systems are full of problems and that the people hate them -- of course, nothing is further from the truth. Just ask any Canadian or Brit. I was in London a few years ago and saw a friend of mine take his young daughter into a GHS hospital for a fever. To be honest, I have seen more responsive healthcare (in Thailand, where I lived for several years, for example) but it was a damn sight better than the care I have witnessed at most American hospitals.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

For everyone complaining about the "Cost" of healthcare... do you really think the COST is going to go down? If you are an average wage earner and you don't want to (or can't) pay for the cost of healthcare.... WHO DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT?

Just admit you want A) someone else to pay for it, or B) you want the Govt to borrow money from China to pay for it. (in which case your kids will have to pay it back).

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

For everyone complaining about the "Cost" of healthcare... do you really think the COST is going to go down? If you are an average wage earner and you don't want to (or can't) pay for the cost of healthcare.... WHO DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT?

Just admit you want A) someone else to pay for it, or B) you want the Govt to borrow money from China to pay for it. (in which case your kids will have to pay it back).

Actually, its not a cost to operations savings, Danno- its the companies paying city governments for the contracts to run the trash collections.

The whole point in regulating the healthcare system is to bring costs down, not in making others pay for something that would be cheaper anyway if public.

Merry Christmas

[Danno 1,228]

A healthy and productive work force IS part and parcel of "National security." A worker who is too sick to work is a drain on the economy, and the costs ripple through our infrastructure far worse than shelling out the money that it would have taken to keep that worker in good health in the first place.

My friend, Logic like this, which justifies any entitlement one desires is in no short supply.

Surely we are heading, without pause to financial ruin.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

For everyone complaining about the "Cost" of healthcare... do you really think the COST is going to go down? If you are an average wage earner and you don't want to (or can't) pay for the cost of healthcare.... WHO DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT?

Just admit you want A) someone else to pay for it, or B) you want the Govt to borrow money from China to pay for it. (in which case your kids will have to pay it back).

Actually, its not a cost to operations savings, Danno- its the companies paying city governments for the contracts to run the trash collections.

The whole point in regulating the healthcare system is to bring costs down, not in making others pay for something that would be cheaper anyway if public.

Merry Christmas

Trying to make logic out of either sentence has not been fruitful,

I think one of us has had to much to drink but let me try.

1. are you under the belief that my city pays a company more money to haul off my trash than it would cost to run the system themselves?

2.We know the "point" is to bring the cost of healthcare down, but How, unless you dictate what providers charge, is that part of the plan?

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

For everyone complaining about the "Cost" of healthcare... do you really think the COST is going to go down? If you are an average wage earner and you don't want to (or can't) pay for the cost of healthcare.... WHO DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT?

Just admit you want A) someone else to pay for it, or B) you want the Govt to borrow money from China to pay for it. (in which case your kids will have to pay it back).

Actually, its not a cost to operations savings, Danno- its the companies paying city governments for the contracts to run the trash collections.

The whole point in regulating the healthcare system is to bring costs down, not in making others pay for something that would be cheaper anyway if public.

Merry Christmas

Trying to make logic out of either sentence has not been fruitful,

I think one of us has had to much to drink but let me try.

1. are you under the belief that my city pays a company more money to haul off my trash than it would cost to run the system themselves?

2.We know the "point" is to bring the cost of healthcare down, but How, unless you dictate what providers charge, is that part of the plan?

I'll give you another shot at better reading comp, brother Danno.

Hint- read the order in which the phrase is structured- 'company pays a city' usually infers that the city is getting payments from a company...

The other, second part involves volume-based logic and the prevention of frivolous corporate expenses. You know... or maybe not. Oh well.

No surprises there.

[symbiosis 0]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

And I always thought it was a pay off to the Mob! Sorry, I lived in NYC for years.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm always amazed at the people who actually believe the Govt is going to get (even deeper) involved in healthcare... and it will be more affordable, that defies logic.

What if I could give you a real world example of how government-run health care IN AMERICA could be more affordable than the private pay system?

I work in a non-profit mental health clinic. Most of our patients (about 90%) receive their "funding" from the State. The other 10% have private insurance coverage.

To handle the authorizations, pre-certifications, and eligibility determinations for that 10% of our patient population, there are THREE employees. To handle the same bereaucratic healthcare 'chore' for the remaining 90% of our patients we have ONE employee. She 'batches' her requests into a computerized system that spits out decisions. The 3 employees who handle the insurance patients have to sit on the phone all day long calling insurance companies for EVERY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST.

Okay, well that example you gave erases all the evidence we have seen in every govt run Program.

You know, there is a reason trash-pickup is privatized in every place where Unions don't have such heavy influence.

Why are all these "once run by govt" programs privatized? It saves a ton of money!

For everyone complaining about the "Cost" of healthcare... do you really think the COST is going to go down? If you are an average wage earner and you don't want to (or can't) pay for the cost of healthcare.... WHO DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT?

Just admit you want A) someone else to pay for it, or B) you want the Govt to borrow money from China to pay for it. (in which case your kids will have to pay it back).

Actually, its not a cost to operations savings, Danno- its the companies paying city governments for the contracts to run the trash collections.

The whole point in regulating the healthcare system is to bring costs down, not in making others pay for something that would be cheaper anyway if public.

Merry Christmas

Trying to make logic out of either sentence has not been fruitful,

I think one of us has had to much to drink but let me try.

1. are you under the belief that my city pays a company more money to haul off my trash than it would cost to run the system themselves?

2.We know the "point" is to bring the cost of healthcare down, but How, unless you dictate what providers charge, is that part of the plan?

I'll give you another shot at better reading comp, brother Danno.

Hint- read the order in which the phrase is structured- 'company pays a city' usually infers that the city is getting payments from a company...

The other, second part involves volume-based logic and the prevention of frivolous corporate expenses. You know... or maybe not. Oh well.

No surprises there.

While this is a topic (trash pick-up) which I have only observatory info about, still. I will challenge your assumption that every city/municipality operate the same way.

IN one area I lived in, payments were made directly from me to the trash-removal company, I guess it is possible they Paid the city to get this contract.

The place I live now, a private company wins a bid and is paid buy the city to pick up trash.

IN both cases, the city saves a ton of money by eliminating the old style of ... gov;t trash pic-up.

As for the concept that Gov't is going to manage everyones healthcare and this VOLUME effort will lead to great savings is a sweet concept, which if it had any legs California or some other large city would have tried.

They know and you have to know.... the only way something like this works is when you have an endless supply of credit.

To bad you are not old enough to recall the promises of how "Social Security" will be self supporting.

[mox 298]

A healthy and productive work force IS part and parcel of "National security." A worker who is too sick to work is a drain on the economy, and the costs ripple through our infrastructure far worse than shelling out the money that it would have taken to keep that worker in good health in the first place.

My friend, Logic like this, which justifies any entitlement one desires is in no short supply.

Surely we are heading, without pause to financial ruin.

Just because the same logic is applied to "any entitlement one desires" doesn't make it untrue in regards to national health care.

We are already seeing the effects of an unhealthy work force on the economy. When you have a worker who cannot afford health care, and because they can't afford health care they are sick and can't work, it's a vicious circle that does nothing but drain resources. That same worker's only recourse is to go to the emergency room, where you the tax payer will eventually pick up the bill anyway.

With regards to your financial ruin comment, I think you're right, but it has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Failed economic and colonial policies over the last 8 years, coupled with a DOUBLING of the national debt and the the largest increase in the size of government and government contractors EVER are what's leading us to economic ruin. Call me crazy if you will, but I think it's time to start taking care of our own people for a change.

[Danno 1,228]

Call me crazy if you will, but I think it's time to start taking care of our own people for a change.

See there, I knew eventually we would agree.