Rethuglican Congresswoman: "There are no Americans who don't have healthcare"

[rebeccajo 14]

Assuming every US doctor will cover these patients, which they will not. Also assuming that these uninsured will be able to travel to any doctor, rather than their local doctor who will most likely be booked until next Christmas. I've lived under a NHS so I know how it works first hand. If you or anyone thinks that everyone will be covered and that it will be business as usual, you are mistaken.

I support covering everyone too, however, I know for a fact that the quality will drop while the time to see a doctor will increase dramatically. Especially for those in poor areas.

I agree there might be a 'transition period'. But I certainly don't think you'd see anything close to a breakdown in care.

I mean really - it's not like all 45 million people without coverage would be running to their doctor as soon as they were able to go see one without it breaking their bankbook.

I do think what you would see is a flood of people getting medications filled.

You mean you think a single payer plan will also cover medicine? Heck, Australia cannot even afford that and they are wealthy. No way in hell would a US system support that. Also keep in mind doctors and so on over there earn 1/5th what their equivalents earn here. They are also protected against frivolous malpractice suits and consequently having to spend thousands a year to protect themselves against that.

Well, the UK manages to allow it's citizens to get a prescription filled for 7 quid.

See - the problem is not just paying for care. The problem is that in the US it is OK to profiteer from care. I see all sorts of arguments in this community about paying for nationalized care. I'm sort of doubting we'd get anybody arguing in favor of the cost of drugs in the US. We all know the prices have little to do with research and everything to do with advertising and sales people toodling around the country in company vehicles carrying box loads of lunches to doctor's offices.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Right. Here's a bit in support of what I'm saying:

Administrative complexity and costs. By international standards, the U.S. approach to financing health care is extremely complex. Research suggests that a sizable fraction of higher U.S. health spending, not explainable by higher GDP per capita, can be traced to the higher administrative overhead required by such a complex system. To quote economist Henry Aaron on this point: "Like many other observers, I look at the U.S. health care system and see an administrative monstrosity, a truly bizarre mélange of thousands of payers with payment systems that differ for no socially beneficial reason, as well as staggeringly complex public system with mind-boggling administered prices and other rules expressing distinctions that can only be regarded as weird."

Aaron’s comment was part of his response to a recent paper by Steffie Woolhandler, Terry Campbell, and David Himmelstein, who find that administrative costs for insurers, employers, and the providers of health care in the U.S. health system (not even including the time costs patients bear in choosing health insurance and claiming reimbursement) were "at least" $294.3 billion in 1999, or about 24 percent of total U.S. health spending.

Aaron’s remarks may leave the impression that public insurance programs are the chief culprits in this "administrative monstrosity." However, as Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis observed in her recent testimony before Congress, administrative expenses for private insurance in the United States are two-and-one-half times as high as those for public programs.

At current expenditures, 24% of health care spending ($2.4tn total) equates to more than half a trillion dollars. Annually. Most of it is money spent w/o adding any value to the delivery of health care. It's waste. Good to know that the "fiscally conservative" crowd supports wasting trillions of dollars.

So from what you are saying then is that when a federal bureaucracy is now going to be involved that the medical industry is now going to have a free hand to just ask for money for care? There will be no paperwork at all? No new rules and steps one has to take? There wil be no bureaucrat to say if anyone one person can have that certain procedure or get that medication?

Also the bureaucrats will only be in Washington and there will be none at the state level or local? So the same probe that are very expensive now in health care will go away? Just disappear like that. I am sure that no expects that there will be no bureaucrats at all. No one expects the Feds to just write a check for anything needed. Also not to mention that it will now be at a Federal level and not local where since it is an entrenched bureaucracy that it will be more responsive than if it were local.

After all many of these pencil pushers and deniers are doing most of this because of a Federal bureaucracy so I doubt they will disappear.

Decisions regarding your health care by any major private insurance company (and appeals of those decisions) are not made at a local level. Please don't imply this Norman Rockwell vision about private insurers.

The bureaucrats in private industry are ruthless when it comes to their motivation for their health care decisions about your health care...the shareholders come first.

[Heracles 417]

Well, the UK manages to allow it's citizens to get a prescription filled for 7 quid.

See - the problem is not just paying for care. The problem is that in the US it is OK to profiteer from care. I see all sorts of arguments in this community about paying for nationalized care. I'm sort of doubting we'd get anybody arguing in favor of the cost of drugs in the US. We all know the prices have little to do with research and everything to do with advertising and sales people toodling around the country in company vehicles carrying box loads of lunches to doctor's offices.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's wrong for anyone to think that they will simply be covered without a decade long transitional period. Governments in the UK, AUS or even Canada get to tender medication and provide the best price to their citizens. Whereas, pharmaceutical companies have prevented this from happening here. I too never saw any money wasted on a medication ad in Aus. No need to since the doctor is the one who decides what is best for the patient. Want a second opinion, go to two doctors.

[Heracles 417]

Decisions regarding your health care by any major private insurance company (and appeals of those decisions) are not made at a local level. Please don't imply this Norman Rockwell vision about private insurers.

The bureaucrats in private industry are ruthless when it comes to their motivation for their health care decisions about your health care...the shareholders come first.

Spot on there. I never ever experienced or heard of a doctor or hospital telling me or anyone what I can or cannot do under NHS. Whereas, since being here I've heard of it a dozen times and even had it happen to my wife. Sorry, we don't cover mammograms under 35. As a result, I had to pay $750+, something that would have been covered under NHS. If it was not, it certainly would not cost $750+.

It is grossly dishonest for anyone to pretend bureaucrats will hypothetically do this when in reality this very second someone in America is having a claim denied or policy canceled by a bunch profit seeking executives. At least I vote in politicians. I have no say over an insurance board.

Edited July 25, 2009 by haza

[rebeccajo 14]

Well, the UK manages to allow it's citizens to get a prescription filled for 7 quid.

See - the problem is not just paying for care. The problem is that in the US it is OK to profiteer from care. I see all sorts of arguments in this community about paying for nationalized care. I'm sort of doubting we'd get anybody arguing in favor of the cost of drugs in the US. We all know the prices have little to do with research and everything to do with advertising and sales people toodling around the country in company vehicles carrying box loads of lunches to doctor's offices.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's wrong for anyone to think that they will simply be covered without a decade long transitional period. Governments in the UK, AUS or even Canada get to tender medication and provide the best price to their citizens. Whereas, pharmaceutical companies have prevented this from happening here. I too never saw any money wasted on a medication ad in Aus. No need to since the doctor is the one who decides what is best for the patient. Want a second opinion, go to two doctors.

This is a HUGE part of where reform needs to happen in this country - I doubt it's being addressed in the big 1000 page bill. Drug companies are running roughshod over the American people just as equally as insurance companies are under the scare tactic of 'quality medication'.

Which is a bit ridiculous in today's world. It is not as if the US has the ball in it's court any longer when it comes to science.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Assuming every US doctor will cover these patients, which they will not. Also assuming that these uninsured will be able to travel to any doctor, rather than their local doctor who will most likely be booked until next Christmas. I've lived under a NHS so I know how it works first hand. If you or anyone thinks that everyone will be covered and that it will be business as usual, you are mistaken.

I support covering everyone too, however, I know for a fact that the quality will drop while the time to see a doctor will increase dramatically. Especially for those in poor areas.

I agree there might be a 'transition period'. But I certainly don't think you'd see anything close to a breakdown in care.

I mean really - it's not like all 45 million people without coverage would be running to their doctor as soon as they were able to go see one without it breaking their bankbook.

I do think what you would see is a flood of people getting medications filled.

You mean you think a single payer plan will also cover medicine? Heck, Australia cannot even afford that and they are wealthy. No way in hell would a US system support that. Also keep in mind doctors and so on over there earn 1/5th what their equivalents earn here. They are also protected against frivolous malpractice suits and consequently having to spend thousands a year to protect themselves against that.

Well, the UK manages to allow it's citizens to get a prescription filled for 7 quid.

See - the problem is not just paying for care. The problem is that in the US it is OK to profiteer from care. I see all sorts of arguments in this community about paying for nationalized care. I'm sort of doubting we'd get anybody arguing in favor of the cost of drugs in the US. We all know the prices have little to do with research and everything to do with advertising and sales people toodling around the country in company vehicles carrying box loads of lunches to doctor's offices.

Don't forget Big Pharma's shareholders. They don't care how much Americans pay for their medication...as long as the shareholders get more return on their investment.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Such a Socialist notion that a company can't make a profit. Wow. Also no competition is good? It is profits and competition that foster innovation in the first place and also a drive to make better drugs that we all care about. Why try to do research and studies if there will be no gain from doing so?

[Heracles 417]

This is a HUGE part of where reform needs to happen in this country - I doubt it's being addressed in the big 1000 page bill. Drug companies are running roughshod over the American people just as equally as insurance companies are under the scare tactic of 'quality medication'.

Which is a bit ridiculous in today's world. It is not as if the US has the ball in it's court any longer when it comes to science.

Now that is the God honest truth if I ever heard it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Such a Socialist notion that a company can't make a profit. Wow. Also no competition is good? It is profits and competition that foster innovation in the first place and also a drive to make better drugs that we all care about. Why try to do research and studies if there will be no gain from doing so?

What kind of gain motivates the researcher?

[Heracles 417]

Such a Socialist notion that a company can't make a profit. Wow. Also no competition is good? It is profits and competition that foster innovation in the first place and also a drive to make better drugs that we all care about. Why try to do research and studies if there will be no gain from doing so?

You think the scientist doing the actual work are pocketing the money? Anyway, the US is hardly leading in medical research anymore. Australia, Sweden and France are leading the way in terms of medical research; including the next vaccine for swine flu. Hardly jungle rules capitalism going on in those countries. Some call it socialism, they call it compassion.

No one is stopping companies from generating a legitimate profit, maybe they should focus on another industry if their sole purpose is to generate wealth. They just need to keep their hands out of playing with peoples' lives and quality of life. When it comes to the medical industry, consumer value should always override Exxon style profit.

Otherwise why stop there. Why not bring back slaves and child labor in the name of profit?

Edited July 25, 2009 by haza

[Kathryn41 3,205]

One other factor that may be added into the equation, regarding how to 'treat' everyone in the US if there is universal health care. . . In Canada, at least, there is a lot of focus placed on preventative medical care. Education and access to appropriate treatment before a medical emergency erupts means fewer costs and less need for later medical intervention. Prevent someone from getting sick in the first place and you won't end up having to treat them with expensive surgeries or medications in the long term. Here I find it is much more reactive- people don't do preventative care because it costs them money so they end up delaying medical treatment until it is something serious - and more expensive to treat. So, rather than preventing people from getting sick in the first place and not incurring a lot of the high ticket medical expenses afterwards, many Americans end up with huge medical bills to treat illnesses and diseases that could have been managed/treated more easily if treated early.

For example, until recently an American friend of mine was living on about $600 a month; she has type 2 diabetes. She had medical insurance until her support center job was outsourced to India and there were no other jobs available in her small community for a 55 year old woman. She could not afford to move to an area with better employment opportunities. Given the choice between going to a doctor and paying for her medication or eating, she choose eating. For 6 years she did not treat her diabetes - then had a major heart attack, caused by her untreated diabetes. She was unable to afford her hospitalization either so has a huge bill that she now is not able to pay. She has recently qualified for medicare and her pension so her monthly income has now doubled. She has finally been able to afford her diabetes medication again because it is covered under Medicare but those years of untreated diabetes have caused irreversible complications. Her medical requirements are always going to be more expensive now than if she had been able to afford preventable medical care earlier.

For your friend, the thing she did without wasn't hospital or doctor visits - she went without her medication.

This is where you get into the concept of "all things medical" in the US being so outrageously expensive - in other words it's not just about insurance costs. It's about the price of the service. Medications in the US are unaffordable unless they happen to be generic.

She was also not able to afford the doctor's visit in order to get the prescription to get her medicine. It was a dual edged sword for her as well. And I agree about the costs of medications in the US being ridiculously inflated. For exactly the same medication I used in Canada - same manufacturer and everything - my co-pays here just about equal the cost of what I would paid up front for the whole medication in Canada. (I then submitted my claims for reimbursements to my work health insurance.) So you can definitely see the 'added' profit to the price of medications.

Such a Socialist notion that a company can't make a profit. Wow. Also no competition is good? It is profits and competition that foster innovation in the first place and also a drive to make better drugs that we all care about. Why try to do research and studies if there will be no gain from doing so?

It's not about making a profit - it's about making an obscene profit at the expense of others. That is the basic problem in the US as was stated earlier - health insurance has its focus on profit, not on health. In other countries such as Canada and such the focus is on health. Big difference. And it isn't the researchers getting the difference or the profit - it is the insurance companies and middlemen living off of the medical needs of citizens and providers.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Kathryn41

[luckytxn 2,265]

What do you consider an obscene profit. If you can please tell us and then look at the medical fields profits. there are many health care providers and they do have to compete with each other believe it or not. Now with a Socialized health care the competition is removed and then we have no way to contain costs.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Such a Socialist notion that a company can't make a profit. Wow. Also no competition is good? It is profits and competition that foster innovation in the first place and also a drive to make better drugs that we all care about. Why try to do research and studies if there will be no gain from doing so?

It is not part of my value system to make money from another person's suffering.

As for competition...you can see where that has gotten us. The current oligarchy has produced a race to the bottom. Is your private health insurance policy less expensive today? Has it increased beyond the cost of inflation? Has your policy's coverage improved? Are your deductibles decreasing? Are your copays decreasing? Does your health insurance carrier now screen people? Do they currently accept people with pre-existing conditions? Has your choice of doctors increased?

Big Pharma is among the most profitable industries in the world. Since you are all for competition and the free market, then why not let the government negotiate with Big Pharma for lower drug prices? Why not allow the very same medications to be imported from Canada at a fraction of the cost? Do you think that Big Pharma's lobbyists have anything to do with these issues? Do you think that they have your best interests in mind when it comes to your health?

By the way, much of the groundwork research is done at the university level using government (and private industry) grants. If you were truly interested in useful "innovation" and in "better drugs", you would do well to advocate for a tightening of the FDA's requirements.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I think we should be allowed to buy whatever drugs we want anywhere we want. The Government does not own our bodies and we should be allowed to but in what we want into our own bodies.

These governments grants are just corporate welfare. If the research is so good then why does our government need to pay for it so that the Pharms can then make a profit for little risk?

[Tahoma 2,292]

What do you consider an obscene profit. If you can please tell us and then look at the medical fields profits. there are many health care providers and they do have to compete with each other believe it or not. Now with a Socialized health care the competition is removed and then we have no way to contain costs.

Huh? You previously commented on Big Pharma. Now you have changed the subject to "the medical field" and "health care providers."