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

[Heracles 417]

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.

No it's not. Maybe in certain countries but certainly not in AUS. I had private health insurance there and was able to go see a doctor faster than anyone here. I paid about $1k a year. I was also able to go to private or public hospitals to be treated. Public hospitals were able to deliver better quality in certain procedures than private. Most services like mammograms, MRI's, blood tests etc are actually administered by private industry anyway there. Only difference is that the government gets to negotiate a reasonable rate to pay them. As they do with pharmaceutical costs. If they can buy a higher quality anti-biotic cheaper from Canada, they will use their bulk buying power and order it from there. Whereas, our employer here gets to decide which insurance company they use, therefore, I have zero say. I got to decide which insurance company I used in AUS.

Health care should not be run as a cable companies and telephone companies are run in the US. Where you have one to choose from and are stuck with them, no matter what. They know this and charge your accordingly, with little you can do about it. Yes these are private monopolies. Health insurance is similar. It is not as if we have hundreds of insurance companies to choose from. Oh no, repubs want to keep it at the state level, therefore, if a company is not registered in one state they will not be able to offer their services there.

The more I think about it, it's republicans who prefer bigger and inefficient government. They don't want to capitalize on economies of scale and prefer smaller inefficient governments. Something akin to communism and socialism. Known to them as artificial job creation. For example, instead of having one police commissioner for the entire state, they prefer every county have their own force. Not only is this extremely inefficient (waste of money) but also extremely bureaucratic and socialist like. At least us conservatives back in AUS did away with counties running health, schools, police, county based taxation or even their own courts. Now they only focus on planning and local services like parks, recreational areas and local shopping strips. This allows them to focus on things that actually effect their community. For example, my county in AUS recently finished building a $30 million dollar state of the art aquatic center for the community. Joint state/county venture. Something everyone will benefit from. Whereas, we have puny HOA pools.

If you want to talk about the biggest socialist of them all I am starting to think they are repubs. After all, the military is as socialist as it gets and repubs love that sector.

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?

No I would rather the status quo where executives and boards that I neither vote it nor have any say in decide what is best for me. I directly work with these clowns daily. I wouldn't trust their golden spoon up their ####### attitude with their own lives; let alone anyone else. In their mind, why fix a road when you can simply drive a $80k Range Rover and not feel the bumps.

America replaced the British monarchy with a board. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Edited July 25, 2009 by haza

[Tahoma 2,292]

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?

I agree that those government grants are simply another form of corporate welfare for Big Pharma. Big Pharma reduces their risk and increases their profit. This is not the free market you were talking about.

[rebeccajo 14]

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.

Have you ever heard of patents? How is a drug company competing with another when they can patent their drug? Then squeeze people for the price of it for the next twenty years?

I mean FFS - just how long does it REALLY take to recover the cost of R&D?

[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.

Have you ever heard of patents? How is a drug company competing with another when they can patent their drug? Then squeeze people for the price of it for the next twenty years?

I mean FFS - just how long does it REALLY take to recover the cost of R&D?

Agreed.

I would also like to add that Big Pharma has little interest in the research and development of medications for rare conditions. Why is this? Even with a patent, they won't make any money on that medication. Is this what Americans want?

[Heracles 417]

I would also like to add that Big Pharma has little interest in the research and development of medications for rare conditions. Why is this? Even with a patent, they won't make any money on that medication. Is this what Americans want?

of course. Realistically they have zero interest in cures. Thankfully there are other countries around the world conducting research too.

Edited July 25, 2009 by haza

[Tahoma 2,292]

haza...

You make a very good point about competition (or lack thereof) in the health insurance industry. I work for a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company. You would think that a company of this size would offer a decent selection of health insurance policies, but they don't. Most years, I have a choice of three. That is not a typo. Two of the policies are offered by the same company and are very similar. The third is not a viable option.

In the U.S., we are unnecessarily tied to this employment-based health insurance system. We have almost no choice in policies through our employer. And, if you move to another job, you have to start all over with another insurance policy (and sometimes with another doctor).

As a matter of fact, my employer dropped my policy a few years ago, and, because of the new policy, I had to look for a new doctor. Too bad, because I liked my old doctor. The new policy is more expensive...with less coverage.

I checked out private policies as an alternative. Forget about it...too expensive.

What competition?

[Tahoma 2,292]

Kathryn41...

Thank you for your comment on the value of preventative care. It will not only lead to cost savings, but also to healthier and more productive people.

[mawilson 2,133]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

Dude he has a point. If 50+ million people are to be covered, we are going to need doctors to treat them. Considering a medical degree costs about 1 zillion dollars, people are going to have to wait weeks for doctors.

How are the Australian and Canadian physicians able to treat the entire population of those countries seeing that their physician to population ratio is just about the same as that in the US?

That's why there are waiting lists in Canada and Australia.

[Heracles 417]

haza...

You make a very good point about competition (or lack thereof) in the health insurance industry. I work for a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company. You would think that a company of this size would offer a decent selection of health insurance policies, but they don't. Most years, I have a choice of three. That is not a typo. Two of the policies are offered by the same company and are very similar. The third is not a viable option.

In the U.S., we are unnecessarily tied to this employment-based health insurance system. We have almost no choice in policies through our employer. And, if you move to another job, you have to start all over with another insurance policy (and sometimes with another doctor).

As a matter of fact, my employer dropped my policy a few years ago, and, because of the new policy, I had to look for a new doctor. Too bad, because I liked my old doctor. The new policy is more expensive...with less coverage.

I checked out private policies as an alternative. Forget about it...too expensive.

What competition?

As part of health reform I believe they should also make it illegal for an employer to force you to use their provider or their policy. I think there is something similar to this in the bill, where the company will have to pay a fee if they don't provide adequate coverage.

We just don't have competition in health care. A public option will allow us to benchmark the private sector and ask are they actually providing quality care and at a reasonable rate.

We could even shift the burden off the employer entirely, allowing us to earn more and companies to focus on their business. Australia's medicare (NHS) is financed through progressive income tax and an income-related Medicare levy (1.5% of someone's salary); when earning over $6k annually.

[Tahoma 2,292]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

Dude he has a point. If 50+ million people are to be covered, we are going to need doctors to treat them. Considering a medical degree costs about 1 zillion dollars, people are going to have to wait weeks for doctors.

How are the Australian and Canadian physicians able to treat the entire population of those countries seeing that their physician to population ratio is just about the same as that in the US?

That's why there are waiting lists in Canada and Australia.

I have to wait for my doctor too. I also have to wait for specialists. As an added bonus, I pay more than they do for my health insurance, deductibles, and copays. If Canada and Australia spent the same percentage of their GDP as the U.S. spends on health care, there would be no wait at all. And, everyone would still be covered.

[msu17 0]

Not feeling like reading 5 pages, so if this was already posted please ignore. To those questioning why med schools aren't training more, they are. There are I believe 5 new medical schools opening soon and most schools have increased class size per the AMA's request. At our school we have added 30 new seats and have stopped admission because we have literally run out of room for people to sit in class and run out of doctors to train students for 3rd and 4th year.

The main problem comes with training residents. We have increased medical school spots WITHOUT increasing residency spots. Without completing residency you can't get board certified. The better question to ask is why the government has not increased residency spots, which are paid with federal dollars. We have doctors to fill them, just not enough spots to be filled. I believe last year we had 5-10 new doctors out of 120 not get a residency spot.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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're good at rambling but come up short when presenting that which supports your arguments. Just a lot of hot air - as one would expect to come out of Texas this time of year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Good Lord.

We already have a national single-payer in place. Medicare. Do you not think that any national plan would not be modeled on that plan? The technology is already in place, you know.

It's not like the US would be jumping blindly into providing care for people. We already do it for people on Medicare.

Exactly! Isn't it hilarious how the steadfast think that their "the government can't do anything more efficient than private businesses" argument holds up when all the facts and numbers fly right into their collective face?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Been waiting for these stats that I have asked for twice myself but of course never received.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Been waiting for these stats that I have asked for twice myself but of course never received.

If you are interested in hearing an insider's view of the health insurance industry, I would suggest that you start by going to pbs.org's web site and search for "Wendell Potter". Mr.Potter spent 20 years in the health insurance industry and was the Director of Corporate Communications for CIGNA Corporation, one of the largest health insurance companies in the United States.

I encourage you to read his Congressional testimony and also to read the verbatim transcript of his interview with Bill Moyers.