Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

[Dan J 277]

Ranking is done by the WHO (World Health Organization).

How about the 40 million people who make too much to get on public programs and not enough to afford health insurance and don't get anything through their employers. When these people do get significantly sick, they run up medical bills that they wont be able to pay for. Then declare bankruptcy and you and I absorb the cost in higher fees and premiums. So they get off with paying nothing and bad credit for 7 years, we see increases in our premiums. Wouldn't it be better if the cost was less so that everyone was able to pay their share? Thats the point of insurance after all. Mitigate the risk. But it doesn't work as well when not everyone is contributing, but still has to absorb the costs of providing health care to everyone.

I'm usually a very free market type of person, but health care is one area that doesn't work so well in a free market system. At least not entirely. There is no competition. You don't really have much of a choice. You get the care or you die.

Patents lock drugs up for 17 years and companies can charge whatever they want. Especially if its the only treatment for a specific disease. And sometimes these drugs are developed with grants or help from public universities and government agencies. Some drugs that are developed are not necessarily even more effective than existing drugs, but the company wants a drug thats patented and will advertise it, so that consumers will tell their doctors to prescribe it to them. Even though a patent expired alternative exists.

I'm not advocating a totally public system like Canada, where the payer and provider is both public. But instead a one payer system where private providers can still exist. No one except for the poor, disabled and elderly get their premiums subsidized by general tax dollars. Everybody pays, and everybody will pay less. Unless you want to go to a private provider, then you pay the difference.

As far as your article goes, we have the same problems, but we are solving them by spending much much much more money. The amount of GDP spent on health care has gone from 14% about 10 years ago to 16% today. Baby boomers are beginning to retire so that for the most part will likely only increase. We should be looking at cutting costs ourselves, so that health care in the US, doesn't become something that only the wealthy can afford.

[GaryC 7]

Ranking is done by the WHO (World Health Organization).

How about the 40 million people who make too much to get on public programs and not enough to afford health insurance and don't get anything through their employers. When these people do get significantly sick, they run up medical bills that they wont be able to pay for. Then declare bankruptcy and you and I absorb the cost in higher fees and premiums. So they get off with paying nothing and bad credit for 7 years, we see increases in our premiums. Wouldn't it be better if the cost was less so that everyone was able to pay their share? Thats the point of insurance after all. Mitigate the risk. But it doesn't work as well when not everyone is contributing, but still has to absorb the costs of providing health care to everyone.

I'm usually a very free market type of person, but health care is one area that doesn't work so well in a free market system. At least not entirely. There is no competition. You don't really have much of a choice. You get the care or you die.

Patents lock drugs up for 17 years and companies can charge whatever they want. Especially if its the only treatment for a specific disease. And sometimes these drugs are developed with grants or help from public universities and government agencies. Some drugs that are developed are not necessarily even more effective than existing drugs, but the company wants a drug thats patented and will advertise it, so that consumers will tell their doctors to prescribe it to them. Even though a patent expired alternative exists.

I'm not advocating a totally public system like Canada, where the payer and provider is both public. But instead a one payer system where private providers can still exist. No one except for the poor, disabled and elderly get their premiums subsidized by general tax dollars. Everybody pays, and everybody will pay less. Unless you want to go to a private provider, then you pay the difference.

As far as your article goes, we have the same problems, but we are solving them by spending much much much more money. The amount of GDP spent on health care has gone from 14% about 10 years ago to 16% today. Baby boomers are beginning to retire so that for the most part will likely only increase. We should be looking at cutting costs ourselves, so that health care in the US, doesn't become something that only the wealthy can afford.

Thats all well and good but if we take the competition out of medicine then innovation and new treatments also slow down. We have all these great drugs and treatments because there is money in it. If you take the possibility of large profits out of the equation then you reduce the incentive for the research.

[Dan J 277]

Ranking is done by the WHO (World Health Organization).

How about the 40 million people who make too much to get on public programs and not enough to afford health insurance and don't get anything through their employers. When these people do get significantly sick, they run up medical bills that they wont be able to pay for. Then declare bankruptcy and you and I absorb the cost in higher fees and premiums. So they get off with paying nothing and bad credit for 7 years, we see increases in our premiums. Wouldn't it be better if the cost was less so that everyone was able to pay their share? Thats the point of insurance after all. Mitigate the risk. But it doesn't work as well when not everyone is contributing, but still has to absorb the costs of providing health care to everyone.

I'm usually a very free market type of person, but health care is one area that doesn't work so well in a free market system. At least not entirely. There is no competition. You don't really have much of a choice. You get the care or you die.

Patents lock drugs up for 17 years and companies can charge whatever they want. Especially if its the only treatment for a specific disease. And sometimes these drugs are developed with grants or help from public universities and government agencies. Some drugs that are developed are not necessarily even more effective than existing drugs, but the company wants a drug thats patented and will advertise it, so that consumers will tell their doctors to prescribe it to them. Even though a patent expired alternative exists.

I'm not advocating a totally public system like Canada, where the payer and provider is both public. But instead a one payer system where private providers can still exist. No one except for the poor, disabled and elderly get their premiums subsidized by general tax dollars. Everybody pays, and everybody will pay less. Unless you want to go to a private provider, then you pay the difference.

As far as your article goes, we have the same problems, but we are solving them by spending much much much more money. The amount of GDP spent on health care has gone from 14% about 10 years ago to 16% today. Baby boomers are beginning to retire so that for the most part will likely only increase. We should be looking at cutting costs ourselves, so that health care in the US, doesn't become something that only the wealthy can afford.

Thats all well and good but if we take the competition out of medicine then innovation and new treatments also slow down. We have all these great drugs and treatments because there is money in it. If you take the possibility of large profits out of the equation then you reduce the incentive for the research.

Not all drugs and technology is really that beneficial, but as far as technology goes in health care, Japan has a lot more of it them we do.

Imagine if we actually spent all the money we spend on drugs on drug research, instead of spending billions on profit, executive compensation, and advertising. Pfizer itself has something like 60% profit on the revenue it generates.

You are correct that if we stick to an only for profit model of drug research, taking out a lot of the money will kill or cripple the industry. But there are a lot of researchers who go into the industry not to make money, but to make a difference. Its the shareholders and executives that are looking to make money.

The funding model will change, but I don't think the innovations will. Maybe a bit less time and money spent on drugs that we don't really need.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At what cost to people who are working?

Comparing the US system to the UK or any other country ... apples and oranges.

Either way we all pay, but with what I now pay through my employer for health insurance with very few actual benefits, I'd much rather pay into something that will provide affordable care for all. My copayments are ridiculous and I believe children should receive health care with no copayments. Children should be covered 100%. Period. End of story.

Well said!

how do you propose we pay for that? more taxes?

I'm currently paying about $250 per month for health insurance. If we can have universal coverage that costs me less than that in added tax, most of us will be saving money rather than it being an added financial burden.

mine runs about $35 a month, no thanks.......

Military, yes? That means that you have socialized health care.

you can too just sign on the dotted line

So you're no better the hypocrites in Congress. Enjoy the benefits of socialized health care yourself but argue against it for mainstream America. How's the view from up there on that fence?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In many Western European countries, health care is the fastest growing segment of government spending. Over the past forty years there has been a significant increase in health-care spending. According to the latest OECD figures (2003), Western European countries spend between 7.3 and 11.5% of their gross domestic product on health care. Ten years ago it was between 6.9 and 9.9%. In 1960 it was only around 4%.

Don't look now Gary but health care is the fastest growing expense relative to the GDP in America, too. We all struggle with aging populations and with prolonged life expectancy - Europe more so than the US. And yet Europe's growth and absolute rates pale in comparison to the US while they have and keep everyone covered.

[Ban Hammer 13,752]

At what cost to people who are working?

Comparing the US system to the UK or any other country ... apples and oranges.

Either way we all pay, but with what I now pay through my employer for health insurance with very few actual benefits, I'd much rather pay into something that will provide affordable care for all. My copayments are ridiculous and I believe children should receive health care with no copayments. Children should be covered 100%. Period. End of story.

Well said!

how do you propose we pay for that? more taxes?

I'm currently paying about $250 per month for health insurance. If we can have universal coverage that costs me less than that in added tax, most of us will be saving money rather than it being an added financial burden.

mine runs about $35 a month, no thanks.......

Military, yes? That means that you have socialized health care.

you can too just sign on the dotted line

So you're no better the hypocrites in Congress. Enjoy the benefits of socialized health care yourself but argue against it for mainstream America. How's the view from up there on that fence?

not on the same level - it's a benefit earned after 20 years of military service......not even congress has to serve that long.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At what cost to people who are working?

Comparing the US system to the UK or any other country ... apples and oranges.

Either way we all pay, but with what I now pay through my employer for health insurance with very few actual benefits, I'd much rather pay into something that will provide affordable care for all. My copayments are ridiculous and I believe children should receive health care with no copayments. Children should be covered 100%. Period. End of story.

Well said!

how do you propose we pay for that? more taxes?

I'm currently paying about $250 per month for health insurance. If we can have universal coverage that costs me less than that in added tax, most of us will be saving money rather than it being an added financial burden.

mine runs about $35 a month, no thanks.......

Military, yes? That means that you have socialized health care.

you can too just sign on the dotted line

So you're no better the hypocrites in Congress. Enjoy the benefits of socialized health care yourself but argue against it for mainstream America. How's the view from up there on that fence?

not on the same level - it's a benefit earned after 20 years of military service......not even congress has to serve that long.

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

No. It's about billions of dollars being wasted year after year for a useless and self-serving apparatus - a private insurance apparatus - instead of being utilized to afford Americans the best health care system in the world. The market clearly fails all of us in this sector.

[Ban Hammer 13,752]

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

pardon me for having foresight when i was young and earning such and any way you slice it, you too can benefit as you are young enough to join if you want it so bad, why are you not in the military already?

i'm really sorry you can't see the difference between something that is used as a recruiting and retention tool, something that in the long run compensates for the low pay, miserable conditions, long hours, lengthy deployments and separation from friends and family. not to mention the threat of being shot at, death/dismemberment and near certainty of being exposed to all kinds of toxic substances, yet you want something quite comperable without the sacrifices involved? would you really enjoy watching that major carrot for being in the military disappear? it would imo have a considerable impact on military retention across the board. and you want to compare the military system to congress?

and while on the topic of such, this was something ("free health care" after retirement) that was told to everyone who joined previous to about 1990 (and such probably still occurs) but the reality of it is more like $500 a year plus co-pays (which for me and nessa have exceeded $300 already this year) (and that price of $500 is rumored to double or triple btw in the near future). this is just another broken promise by the government.......yet you want the government to have a program that is similar? surely you jest!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

pardon me for having foresight when i was young and earning such and any way you slice it, you too can benefit as you are young enough to join if you want it so bad, why are you not in the military already?

Chuck. I have coverage. It's my neighbors I am concerned about. All 45 million of them.

Besides, I hate wasteful red tape. And the market has created red tape that is second to none in the health care field. There's just nothing right about it. It doesn't serve the American people well while costing them a pretty penny. We ought to be allowed to throw this inefficient piece of garbage system out the window and come up with more efficient and less costly alternatives such as the one you enjoy.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some other interesting facts:

(1) The infant mortality rate in the US is ranked 180 out of 221 - significantly higher than the UK, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Australia and France.

(2) The average life expectancy in the US is lower than all of the above countries. (BTW - the World Health Organization has a different ranking, but the US is still listed below all of the above in terms of average life expectancy).

Would it be reasonable to draw conclusions between this - and the availability and quality of private healthcare?

[Ban Hammer 13,752]

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

pardon me for having foresight when i was young and earning such and any way you slice it, you too can benefit as you are young enough to join if you want it so bad, why are you not in the military already?

Chuck. I have coverage. It's my neighbors I am concerned about. All 45 million of them.

Besides, I hate wasteful red tape. And the market has created red tape that is second to none in the health care field. There's just nothing right about it. It doesn't serve the American people well while costing them a pretty penny. We ought to be allowed to throw this inefficient piece of garbage system out the window and come up with more efficient and less costly alternatives such as the one you enjoy.

you got an awfully big neighborhood

while the thought of a health care system sounds great, i've seen firsthand what happens when the government (aka the military) administers a health care system. it's quite painful at times. surely you've been following the fiasco at walter reed?

eta: more than a few of your neighbors are free to join the military too i'd bet.

Edited August 12, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

pardon me for having foresight when i was young and earning such and any way you slice it, you too can benefit as you are young enough to join if you want it so bad, why are you not in the military already?

Chuck. I have coverage. It's my neighbors I am concerned about. All 45 million of them.

Besides, I hate wasteful red tape. And the market has created red tape that is second to none in the health care field. There's just nothing right about it. It doesn't serve the American people well while costing them a pretty penny. We ought to be allowed to throw this inefficient piece of garbage system out the window and come up with more efficient and less costly alternatives such as the one you enjoy.

you got an awfully big neighborhood

while the thought of a health care system sounds great, i've seen firsthand what happens when the government (aka the military) administers a health care system. it's quite painful at times. surely you've been following the fiasco at walter reed?

How many of those things along the Walter Reed lines do you reckon we have going in in the private care and nursing industry?

Look, socialized health care would have it's flaws as well. Wouldn't be a perfect world by any means. But it would beat the ####### system we currently have both on the care and on the cost side. We'd all be better off - with the exception of the profiteers of the current mess, of course. But those monies could be spend productively rather than wastefully on useless red tape. The economy overall would be thankful.

[Ban Hammer 13,752]

Anyway you slice it, you're benefiting from something you like to argue against.

pardon me for having foresight when i was young and earning such and any way you slice it, you too can benefit as you are young enough to join if you want it so bad, why are you not in the military already?

Chuck. I have coverage. It's my neighbors I am concerned about. All 45 million of them.

Besides, I hate wasteful red tape. And the market has created red tape that is second to none in the health care field. There's just nothing right about it. It doesn't serve the American people well while costing them a pretty penny. We ought to be allowed to throw this inefficient piece of garbage system out the window and come up with more efficient and less costly alternatives such as the one you enjoy.

you got an awfully big neighborhood

while the thought of a health care system sounds great, i've seen firsthand what happens when the government (aka the military) administers a health care system. it's quite painful at times. surely you've been following the fiasco at walter reed?

How many of those things along the Walter Reed lines do you reckon we have going in in the private care and nursing industry?

Look, socialized health care would have it's flaws as well. Wouldn't be a perfect world by any means. But it would beat the ####### system we currently have both on the care and on the cost side. We'd all be better off - with the exception of the profiteers of the current mess, of course. But those monies could be spend productively rather than wastefully on useless red tape. The economy overall would be thankful.

i think that's a pipe dream. the government can't even manage military health care nor medicare worth a hoot, i'd shudder to think how they could muck up a nationwide plan as you propose.

eta - in regard to your question about walter reed - probably more incidents of such than people would be pleased about.

Edited August 12, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[thetreble 19]

You keep saying that the government can't manage health care....are you referring to the US government or governments in general? As far as I'm concerned, the Canadian government has done a pretty alright job at it.

And if you are talking just about the US government, if you can put the right people behind it, it could work. You can't fault them for something that hasn't happened yet just based upon past experiences with other things.

Edited August 12, 2007 by thetreble