Think about it. They now have a filibuster-proof congress, and if health care fails in 2009, it’s the Democrats’ fault. They can’t even blame the Republicans for their normal obstruction, as they no longer need a bipartisan bill.
President Barack Obama didn’t count on that when he was making all those campaign promises, but now it’s 100-percent his baby. He supported a single-payer plan, though he left some wiggle room in case Congress split. But it didn’t. The Dems now have total control and they don’t want it!
Single-payer is the most cost efficient system for our nation and is the most humane. You get sick, you get care and the caregiver gets paid. Nothing could be simpler. And though Medicare is not perfect it is indeed the least costly system of all with full physician choice, no wait times and no rationing.
But our politicians have a problem. Both Democrats and Republicans have shared in the $46 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry. Needless to say, what is in the best interest of the nation is exactly opposite to the best interest of the for-profit insurers. The 22-percent saved comes right out of their pocket.
The question is how do we pay for it as a universal program? But first let’s understand who’s paying for it now.
Everybody is. We pay in cost-shifting, bankruptcy costs, and lastly, when businesses add their employee health costs to their product price and we reimburse them at the cash register.
In the process we make our businesses highly uncompetitive with foreign products, which often forces employers to build their products in countries that do not burden them with health care. We make more cars in Canada than in Michigan because their health care costs are $800 per employee per year and ours is $6500. That adds $1,500 per car.
Flat out, businesses should not be involved in providing employee health care at all, but that leaves either individual insurance or a public pool. Our politicians should create a single-payer Medicare-for-all system that is funded by our national infrastructure instead of the mish-mash of payments and non-payments. That’s what most advanced nations have done, and it works.
Over 31 percent of health care costs are consumed by the make-work insurance bureaucracy; as compared with the 9 percent needed for a single-payer. A huge savings to the public could be had.
With a single-payer system you see your same doctor and go to the same hospital as before. The only thing that changes is where they send the bill, and most people could care less about whose logo is on the invoice.
The beauty of Medicare is its simplicity. Everybody gets care, everybody pays into it through progressive taxation, companies are freed of the expense, jobs are increased, 100% of the public is covered, and consumers save $400 billion per year in reduced overhead.
The current for-profit system includes extra premiums to offset high CEO salaries and bonuses, broker sales commissions, shareholder profits, actuarial and gatekeeper costs, and even their lobbying and campaign contributions which are passed on to the patient.
Isn’t it nice to know that your politician is getting a piece of your private health care dollar? That’s why politicians always prefer private companies over government entities; one can give campaign cash and the other can’t. That’s why they choose to leave insurers in the loop.
Bottom line; most people would rather spend $500 per month in taxes to pay for an all-inclusive system than $700 per month for an exclusive system that doesn’t give better care and drives jobs out of the U.S.|
And all doctors and hospitals will be privately run and you’ll have 100-percent choice. What’s not to like about that?
But get this: our problem today is not health care, it’s political. Your politicians need to hear from you, and your voice must be loud if it is to drown out the moneyed interests. Your politicians work for you, not them.
Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Wisconsin and publishes http://MoneyedPoliticians.net. He authored "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America."
38 Comments
As usual Jack you hit the nail right on the head. It would nice if many in business would put aside ideology and imagine that if government treated taxpayers to the kind of increases that are meted out by the health care industry they would be screaming to high heaven.
What makes this different?
Some simple questions for Jack Lohman-
Will government employees, union employees, and politicians participate in the program and pay the same costs ordinary citizens will pay? If not, why?
If this plan is to create the savings you claimed, will all people who currently have private health insurance pay less for health insurance? What kind of savings can I expect and how exactly will I get my employer to pay a higher salary to compensate for the added taxes that I will incur for the public health insurance plan?
If we all won't be getting a net decrease in health insurance costs, at what income level will people currently covered by private insurance be paying more?
If medicare is such an efficient, well-run, health plan, why is it going bust? And don't blame it on Bush's prescription drug plan- Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program, is funded directly by participant payments and general taxes. Medicare Parts A and B are projected to run huge deficits separate from Medicare Part D.
You state we will have 100% choice under your government health plan. If the government doesn't cover a procedure I need within a specified time I would like to have it done- where do I go to get the procedure done within my time-frame and will the government plan pay for it or do I have to pay out of pocket?
Why would the US government plan not have waiting periods and shortages of physicians like other countries that have single-payer health plans?
Currently my company negotiates with the health care insurance provider to cover certain procedures and they use the leverage of changing providers if the coverage isn't to their satisfaction. What leverage do we have to get improved service from the government health plan? Is it the same kind of leverage I have with the post office or the DMV?
Also, with regards to 100% choice, can I opt out and get private insurance with a refund of the tax money I would have spent on government health insurance?
Please specifically answer these questions. Its the least we could expect if we are to consider handing over our family's health care to the government.
The issue isn't necessarily who's paying. Issues begin arising when we give one impersonal entity the ultimate authority to decide who gets paid how much for what procedure. Many doctors lose money treating Medicare patients because the government dictates what they're willing to pay for a particular disease, regardless of treatment... but doctors typically treat anyway because they know it's right. They simply (and unfortunately) have to pass the added cost on as overhead, which raises prices elsewhere. We're in for a big healthcare mess when there's only one payer and there's no where else to pass along this shortfall.
Bill, you are asking me to second-guess politicians, and much depends on which special interests outbid the others at any particular moment in time. It would surely be easier if the politicians weren't on the take and my answers reflected what they should do rather than what they will do, but that's not possible at the moment.
I'll try to answer your questions, though I get the distinct impression that you might be with the insurance industry and trying to throw any and all the curve balls possible. If that's the case I think you owe it to the readers to disclose your interests.
Some of your questions simply don't have solid answers, but let me try anyway.
>>> "Will government employees, union employees, and politicians participate in the program and pay the same costs ordinary citizens will pay? If not, why?"
If they design the system correctly, as a Medicare-for-all system, indeed everybody will be paying the same. Do I trust politicians to make it equal? Absolutely not. But it will be a hell of a lot better than giving the insurance industry 31% of our health care dollars and driving jobs out of the country.
>>> "will all people who currently have private health insurance pay less for health insurance?"
Some will and some won't, but they'll all be paying differently… through taxes rather than the myriad ways they are currently paying.
>>> "What kind of savings can I expect and how exactly will I get my employer to pay a higher salary to compensate for the added taxes that I will incur for the public health insurance plan?"
This, only your employer can answer. Are you worth a damn as an employee?
>>> "If we all won't be getting a net decrease in health insurance costs, at what income level will people currently covered by private insurance be paying more?"
That's an impossible question to answer, but I have a feeling that's why it was asked.
>>> "If Medicare is such an efficient, well-run, health plan, why is it going bust?"
And don't blame it on Bush's prescription drug plan? That's a $780 billion government giveaway program! Are you also blind?
But that's not its only problem. People are living longer, require more care and we aren't funding it correctly and we aren't controlling overuse and abuse. But don't get excited, we have even more fraud and overuse and abuse in the private system because fraud there rarely involves jail time.
And if "private" is so efficient, why is Medicare "Advantage" plans costing taxpayers 17% more than traditional Medicare?
>>> "If the government doesn't cover a procedure I need within a specified time I would like to have it done- where do I go to get the procedure done within my time-frame and will the government plan pay for it or do I have to pay out of pocket?"
You go to a regular doctor and pay him outside of the system. But what makes you think that you won't get it in a timely manner? Is that what the insurance industry told you to ask?
>>> "Why would the US government plan not have waiting periods and shortages of physicians like other countries that have single-payer health plans? "
Because we'll continue paying twice the health care costs than the other countries currently pay. 16.5% of GDP here versus their less than 10%.
>>> "Currently my company negotiates with the health care insurance provider to cover certain procedures and they use the leverage of changing providers if the coverage isn't to their satisfaction. What leverage do we have to get improved service from the government health plan? Is it the same kind of leverage I have with the post office or the DMV?"
You really can't be that naïve, Bill. Private insurers can cancel a policy retroactively if they find any minor flaw in the application, such as the failure to report acne when you were a teenager. Even if you have major surgery scheduled, they can cancel and back-bill you. They call it "rescission." ALL companies do it, unless of course your company is special and has managed to negotiate that standard clause out (at a heavy price, incidentally). They will show you the door before giving a blanket coverage. (Medicare, incidentally, doesn't drop anybody after-the-fact, nor does it have cherry-picking or lemon drops.)
>>> "Also, with regards to 100% choice, can I opt out and get private insurance with a refund of the tax money I would have spent on government health insurance?"
I really wish there was some way to let people like you opt into or out of whatever single payer system gets passed. But sure enough, when they become unemployed or financially incapable at some later date they'll want into the public system they haven't been paying into, and "most" of the public is compassionate enough to take care of them. So the answer is NO.
>>> "… if we are to consider handing over our family's health care to the government."
I love it. Private insurance CEOs whose salaries and bonuses and their shareholders profits dictate the denial of care, and that makes their system so much more humane.
But now that I have answered your questions, answer mine. Do you represent the insurance or healthcare industry?
Jason, Medicare rates are "fair" because they have set them to offset labor, technology and overhead. But they do not overpay. Doctors don't lose money on Medicare, they just can't bill the way they used to. That system was called "reasonable and customary," which is better defined as "whatever you can get away with." Those charges are often four times what Medicare allows, and are sometimes even justified because they cost-shift to offset bad debt and charity care. But with a Medicare-for-all system there is none of that to offset. There will be no shortfall which must be made up by cost-shifting.
And incidentally, 60% of doctors support a single-payer plan and they wouldn't if it were to cost them money. Their payments will go down and so will their costs, but it will be them treating the patient rather than the private CEO.
Mr. Lohman- I'm not working in the insurance biz. I'm just concerned about my and my family's health care. Here is a clue- not everybody that is against your health care scheme works for the insurance industry- take a look at some honest polls about satisfaction with the current system.
Recent ABC News Poll- "Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."
Most of your answers are fairly fuzzy- I'm happy with my health care coverage and I know what it costs. Why should I want to jump into a system for which I don't know what it will cost me while I'm happy with what I've got? You may call me selfish, but will the government employees, union employees and politicians allowed to be selfish?
Why should I want a health care system for which I will have to beg my employer to increase my income to offset my new taxes, while at the same time you are claiming it will save employers money? Who is going to get the benefit of cost savings- me or my employer?
Why should I want to switch to a plan that is known to have waiting lines and limited choice in other countries, to be run by a government that can't efficiently run the post office, Amtrak, Medicare, or public education at a reasonable cost to taxpayers?
Why would I hand over my health care to politicians who are in your own words are operating in a corrupt environment?
You say you hope that government employees, union employees, and politicians will join your single-payer system at the same cost of ordinary taxpayers- If your system is so good why aren't they willing to give up their health care plans and join the rest of we serfs? Why would they not be required to join the system? Why can they opt out but I can't? The idea that they would not join the system stinks to high heaven and shows your single-payer plan will at its infancy be corrupt. I'm not taking chances based on hope when it comes to my family's health care. After the Porkulus I plan, I don't want to pay for any more hope and change.
PS- You didn't answer my question about Medicare/Medicaid going bust. (I also see you didn't claim its Bush's fault this time considering I refuted your previous repeated falsehoods that it is being caused by the prescription drug Medicare option). If abuse is occurring in Medicare then why is our government not managing it correctly and why would I trust them to manage the entire health care system? If you haven't noticed, politicians like to give away things without paying for them until its a financial disaster- see Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and California.
And incidentally, you can see the funding mechanism here
http://old.healthcare-now.org/hr676financing.html but this was as originally proposed, not as it would necessarily be passed.
But there is word that the congressional committees are toying with the idea of a national plan that looks like the horrendous Massachusetts plan that forces all "uncovered" citizens into a mandated health insurance plan, whether you can afford it or not. This promises to be the biggest ever giveaway to private industry. And while it may not affect you, it could take food off the table of one of your kids or grandkids to pass wealth on to the industry. But if you ARE in the industry you'll love it.
See Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
Well I certainly respect this guy's optimism. What I don't understand is his denial of the fact that everything our government has their hands on is poorly run and too costly because of mismanagement, bureaucracy and theft.
The other problem with a national health care system is that people are subsidizing the low rates paid my medicare. When we go to a single payer system (national health care is what it is, but they don't want to use that term) those subsidized payments will be gone and the hospitals will not have any money to invest in the future.
These socialists always look at business profits and think they are obscene. Because someone makes a 10% profit one year, it is assumed that that is a straight line profit never taking into account future capital costs, research and bad years. When they take these profits away businesses will fail in the bad years because they have no cushion.
If people like Mr. Lohman can't see how disastrous this is for our country I have little faith that this train will be stopped before the derailment.
This "single payer" concept is the foot in the door for national health care. If you don't believe this do a little research on Tom Daschle who laid this all out in his book. He was set to run it for King Obama but a little tax problem screwed him up. Now he is working behind the scenes to accomplish national health care.
Once you allow this to start health care as we know it will never come back.
Mr. Lohman you are either very naive or complicit in the destruction of the greatest health care system in the world!
Please note I forgot to make a disclaimer in my previous comment.
I hereby disclose that I have an affiliation with the health care industry.
I am not employed in the industry, but am unfortunately a customer.
I do believe that this gives me the right to comment on this issue even though Mr. Lohman believes that the only people that would dare argue against national health care are the people in insurance or the industry.
We have more to lose than anyone so wake up and call your congressmen and senators!
"... the greatest health care system in the world!" ?????????????????" What are you smoking? If people like Dave Holzem and Bill Marsh love our messed up and disfunctional health care system so much, I say they can have it. Just keep paying those premiums and those co-pays, boys! And the deductibles! And you'll find that if you have one catastrophic illness in your family, you will be bankrupt and you'll lose all of your life savings. Nice system! Not! What a joke. We need a complete overhaul, and we need it now.
RE- Wolters- I would love to stay with my current health care plan, despite its cost, versus being forced into a government plan- put the plan you are in love with would not allow me to opt out. You need to work on a coherent argument.
RE- Lohman- You disappoint me Jack, you have been pushing your single-payer health care plan for years now and you still don't have the details worked out but want everyone to be forced into your system on a hope and prayer that it will all work out. As I said earlier, that fact that government employees, union employees and politicians will likely be able to get out of your single-payer plan indicates to me it will be a fiasco for the little people that are not politically connected. I think that is more corrupt than health insurance companies making a profit. And it surely is undemocratic.
The product of health insurance is to provide you with medical coverage when you need it.
Unlike other businesses that need to provide you with their product in order to make any money, health insurance companies actually make more money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims.
In other words, they make more money when they do NOT provide the product that you have paid them for.
Read the 50 to 70 pages of your health insurance contract.
Pay particular attention to the section entitled "limitations and exclusions".
People's health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO's and stockholders.
If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire department protection based on insurance premiums you pay.
Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for 'limitations and exclusions' on whether or not the police or fire department would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.
The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime.
So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?
Bill, then I will accept that we have an honest disagreement, but please excuse my skeptism. I am constantly bombarded by industry hacks whose only purpose is to protect this public rip-off.
But if you really are concerned about your family's care I'd look close at a Medicare-for-all system versus one that is run by a CEO of a for-profit health care insurer. Understand what rescission is and how it can affect your family. Understand what denial of care and pre-existing diseases are. And remember that the 17 year old girl in California that died because the insurer refused her a transplant, was insured by CIGNA and not Medicare.
>>> "Why should I want to jump into a system for which I don't know what it will cost me while I'm happy with what I've got?"
Because (a) you are only employed for the moment, and (b) only have insurance as long as your employer chooses to provide you with insurance, and (c) Medicare is going to cost you 20% co-pays and you can get Gap insurance to cover even those, and your co-pays are then zero. Now you know. And if Medicare doesn't cover something you can but it on the free market.
>>> "Why should I want to switch to a plan that is known to have waiting lines and limited choice in other countries,"
Because we aren't other countries and we fund our system at twice the dollars and as a result we don't have waiting lines or rationing.
>>> "… to be run by a government that can't efficiently run the post office, Amtrak, Medicare, or public education at a reasonable cost to taxpayers?"
The Medicare bureaucracy operates at about 9% of health care costs versus 31% for the private industry. The other govt. departments don't matter (but try getting FedEx or UPS to deliver your mail across country for 47 cents, and please get back to me when they can).
>>> "Why would I hand over my health care to politicians who are in your own words are operating in a corrupt environment?"
Because as bad as they are they can be unelected and the for-profit CEO can't be.
>>> "Why would they not be required to join the system?"
They could be, and the politicians could be, but either way it does not affect your care or theirs. They have total care with 20% co-pay; Medicare has total care with 20% co-pay. Their insurers' payments have a different logo on the checks. So what? You see the same doctor as before. Why do you care?
Except that yours is ideology driven, and I suggest that if it is really that important to you, you dig deeper into how private healthcare works just fine if you don't get really sick, and falls apart the more expensive you become.
>>> "…and you still don't have the details worked out"
No, and I never will. It is up to our politicians. But I have plenty of resources on my web site.
And Dave, mine is not just optimism. It's combined with 40 years in the health care industry dealing with both private insurers and Medicare. And why do you say Medicare is worse off? People can opt into private Medicare systems, called Medicare Advantage, but those systems cost taxpayers 17% more than public Medicare. So much for private being more efficient than public!
>>> "This "single payer" concept is the foot in the door for national health care."
No Dave, this IS national health care, and it should be. Our current system is so great that the World Health Organization has the US ranked at 37th in the world.
And Bill, so that I am more explicit and you are less wrong in the future, Medicare D is funded 75% by the taxpayers and 25% by the premiums charged to users. Please check this accuracy with your congressman (and if he happened to vote for it in 2003, ask him why?)
Jack I will make this easy on you. Could you tell me where there is a better health care system?
They cost more because they have to subsidize the underpayments from the government. When the private health care insurers are gone who pays the subisidy?
Google this Jack and tell me the WHO rankings are something you want to stand behind:
The Public Versus The
World Health
Organization On Health
System Performance
Who is better qualified to judge health care systems: public
health experts or the people who use health care?
by Robert J. Blendon, Minah Kim, and John M. Benson
ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization (WHO) ranked health systems in
191 countries based on measures developed by public health experts. This
paper compares the WHO rankings for seventeen industrialized countries with
the perceptions of their citizens. The results show little relationship between
WHO rankings and the satisfaction of the citizens who experience these health
systems. The health systems of some top WHO performers are rated poorly by
their citizens, including the low-income and elderly. The two rated most highly by
the public rank at the bottom of the WHO ratings. These findings suggest that
both public and expert views should be considered in international rankings.
Dave, if you are one of the lucky ones that (a) are employed for the moment, and (b) your employer chooses to provide you with insurance, and (c) that insurance company CEO does not elect to withhold care to increase profits, we have the best health care in the world. But not all of that is true for all citizens, and that's why WHO ranked us at 37th in overall care. And you are simply 100% wrong on Medicare reimbursing less than cost. But that never seems to stand in the way of conservative claims.
Medicare is 100% optional for the patient and provider. If it reimbursed below cost ABSOLUTELY NO PROVIDER would agree to take the losses you claim. And if we had a 100% Medicare-for-all system THERE WOULD BE NO CHARITY CARE AND BAD DEBT TO SUBSIDIZE!!!! Get that, please, so we don't have to keep covering old ground.
Jack, one more time. Tell me what country has a better system.
So I am trying to understand this Medicare thing. Medicare will reimburse a provider whatever their cost is?
I was under the impression that Medicare set their rates and it was take it or leave it.
I do get the fact that your system will provide 100% care. That is the problem smarty, some of us do get it!
WE GET THE FACT THAT YOUR SOCIALIST SYSTEM IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH A CAPITALIST SYSTEM AND THAT IT WILL BANKRUPT US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am answering your questions and once again, I ask you to answer mine.
WHICH COUNTRY (I WILL SETTLE FOR ONE) HAS BETTER HEALTH CARE THAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
WHO ranked us 37th because they hate America and what it stands for.
Read the article I referenced Jack so I don't have to keep covering old ground.
Speaking of old ground, how many times do you socialists have to try things before you understand that socialism doesn't work. Absent of motivation man does not create. We have been perfectly fine carrying those less fortunate in this country but you guys are going to kill the golden goose.
Do you mean "which country has better health care IF you have unlimited insurance" or "IF you have limited insurance" or "IF you have no insurance at all, or IF you have an HMO?" We have some of the best physicians and nurses and hospitals in the world, but we don't make them available to all people. But we also have some of the worst. Having worked with doctors for 40 years I feel lucky that I know the good from the bad, and it has nothing to do with what they charge.
If I had to get sick anywhere it would be the US, but of course, I am on that socialized system called Medicare. France is ranked very high, as is Germany and Taiwan and Sweden. Taiwan has a system copied after our Medicare. Private hospitals and doctors but a single-payer payment system.
Medicare has a fee schedule which costs out every test and surgery and procedure, and it is based on local prevailing wages, technology costs and overhead. It is mostly "fair," though some tests are likely overpaid and some underpaid. But 60% of physicians support a Medicare-for-all system because its pluses outnumber its minuses. If a patient is sicker longer, the tests accumulate and the costs are higher.
But obviously you are one of those young bucks that has a job and has not been hit with unexpected medical expenses, like having a kid diagnosed with childhood diabetes or other genetic disease. Good for you.
And oh, socialism doesn't work? It wasn't Sweden that caused the worldwide financial crisis, it was US unfettered capitalism. Deregulation of the banks and wild lending by Fannie and Freddie and the private banking system. No, Obama isn't handling it the way I'd handle it, but he also didn't create the problem.
Jack,
I love your idea of a utopian healthcare system. But it will not happen with this administration or any administration until lobby money is removed from all politicians coffers.
That said, I hope everyone begins to realize that government intervention is the root of healthcare cost escalation. Over the last 20 yeats, regulations brought on by lobbying, lawsuits and unthoughtout policy have driven more and more cost into the system. Especially those regs that create seudo monopolies in the insurance industry. The government should only keep the playing field level and the rules in favor of the citizens.
I wish there were statistics that show the cost of care for illegal immigrants. Maybe they have no impact but I would like to see numbers to make a call on the notion.
If the adminstration wants to fix healthcare, right now, they only need remove the monopolistic and regulatory hell they created. Keep the portibility and not excluding preexisting conditions to favor citizens though.
That said, I just don't trust them. Let's not get started on the stimulus (pork) bill. Honestly, I'm confident these politicians want to get their collective hands on the trusts for medicare and social security. Mark my words, that is where they are heading.
If we all want to work on a common goal, get the lobby/special interest money away from the politicians. Once this is done, maybe we can trust government again.
Bob, I certainly agree with you on the campaign money issue. Had we fixed ethics in government long ago we wouldn't be discussing our health care or economy crisis today. I don't like government any more than anybody else, but I trust them more than I do CEOs whose salaries and bonuses are affected by the amount of patient care they can deny. If I had my preference it would be to have a totally independent nonprofit agency (like the Red Cross) which is not owned by a for-profit company (like Aurora), controlled by a health board of qualified, retired, non-conflicted, doctors and health care administrators, funded by the taxpayers, and with full disclosure of any attempts of political interference.
And I agree with you on the stimulus bill. I didn't vote for Obama and those that did should be complaining that this is NOT the change they voted for. He has been a total waste on health care, campaign reform, and his handling of the economy.
But we are on the other end of the see-saw. The Republicans will get in and it will be more of the same. We need a strong center party, and Gingrich is not the guy. Or we need zero parties and let politicians stand on their own two feet.
Good point Mr. Johnson about illegal immigrants- they are counted in US Census statistics and inflate the population of low-income households in the US, a subset of the households that typically do not have private health insurance.
PS- Mr. Lohman keeps claiming he is a Republican while he regurgitates the democratic/socialist party line about health care and the recent financial crisis. He mentions wild lending by Fannie and Freddie as being part of the problem causing the current crisis- NEWS FLASH- Fannie and Freddie were basically politically corrupted, quasi-governmental, entities that were used by democratic party politicians and their friends to allow inept residential lending policies, dole out crazy loans, and provide jobs to political cronies (Harold Raines, Jamie Gorelich, Rahm Emannuel, etc). The democrats that tanked Fannie and Freddie are the same people that now want to take over the health care system. But gee, I hope they will do better next time....
Some guys just say "no" to anything resembling progress. They're against health care reform, they're against public mass transit, they're against anything green. They're the same clowns who, in different eras, would have shout out against the Wright brothers, against civil rights, against going to the moon and against anything/anyone else who pushes mankind forward. They prefer the status quo. Always. And they abhor science. So, don't go trying to persuade them with WHO rankings or anything about global warming. Deaf ears. Their brains are turned off. Progress only comes when enough momentum builds to overcome the dinosaurs who defend the status quo. Move out of the way, longnecks!
Bill, I am absolutely a socialist when it comes to health care, but a right wing wacko when it comes to corporate taxes. Go figure! Got you confused? I hope so.
And yes, illegal immigrants are part of the problem, but cutting off health care is not the way to solve that one. We are paying for their care anyway, when they show up at the ER, it would be cheaper to give them a doctor to go to. At least until that issue is resolved.
And again, you are probably right. 100% of the economy was the Dems' fault and eight years of conservative rule had nothing to do with it.
And oh, I didn't hear back from you on the fact that Medicare D is funded 75% by the taxpayers and 25% by the premiums charged to users. Can we now blame the R's for something?
Really John. That's what you've got to share? REALLY. You know better than most, decisions based on emotional appeal, labelling others and finger pointing are definitely lacking in strategic planning. The black and white view of the topics you espouse as the only options are less than unsupported. I read others giving good reasoning and questioning. Then I read 4th grade comments. Thank you for sharing. We're all a bit dumber for having read this screed.
Wow. Informative reading. Let's see. On the pro "side" we have the introduction of a government run plan that - as I understand it - offers a OPTIONAL way to go v current private plans. On the other side, we have people who a) don't like anything government does anyway, b) like to use the word "socialist" and c) think our problems are caused by illegal immigrants. Lohman wins.
Jack- I stated in one of my earlier comments that Medicare D is funded by taxpayers and subscribers. I also stated it is not the reason Medicare/Medicaid are going bust, something which you have dishonestly stated several times in the past.
Let me get this right on your plan- government employees, union employees and politicians will not be required to participate. Illegal aliens will be able to participate. Businesses will be able to drop their health care benefits and reap the savings (see your editorial headline). Regular citizens/taxpayers will be required to participate and pay for all non-taxpayers, while having to beg their employers to make up the difference between what they are currently paying and the added taxes needed to cover the savings to their employers. Also, rich people will still have a choice to buy private, quality, health care a short flight out of the country. And this is good for me and my family when we are currently satisfied with our health care coverage?
RE-Wolters & Welke- You got me guys, I'm against air travel and certainly space travel (the moon is made of cheese for crying out loud), civil rights, and all other forms of progress including the wheel, fire, and deodorant. I'm against all things government (I'm an anarchist- look it up), I said the evil word socialist, and think our health care problems, economic problems, sewage treatment problems, my sometime marital problems, and my toothache problems can be solved if we only got the illegal immigrants to go back to where they came from. Now I understand why you support government-run health care.
The problems with Govt. run healthcare are really much simpler than is being eluded to: First, Jack is right, physicians won't go broke on Medicare, neither will hospitals (at least not at current levels of reimbursement) The question is as deficits rise and the taxpaying portion of the American public decreases, who will be able to pay the current levels of Medicare reimbursement. The answer is they will go down, probably to current Medicaid levels or even lower. It is not possible to continue the current level of quality or service that we demand at those payment levels. Proof of that can be found in the recently released study of patient satisfaction with hospitals. At the bottom of the list were St Joseph's Hospital and Sinai Hospital, both of which see a diproportionate number of Medicaid patients. Satisfaction levels were just over 50%. Satisfaction levels at the Orthpaedic Hospital which sees very few Medicaid patients was well over 90%. When reimbursement drops to Medicaid levels service suffers. That's why we have a Hospital tax in Wisconsin, to offset low government payments to those hospitals. That's also evidence of cost shifting which eveeryone wants to deny. Second, Politics rule Medicare reimbursement to a very high level. Yes CMS sets rates, but politics play into everything. If you want proof of that look at the Deficit Reduction Act. Almost every type of medical imaging saw reductions in reimbursement of 20% or more. Over 40% for PET scans. Those are scans used to diagnose cancer. What was the one type of imaging that wasn't cut, but in fact raised- answer Breast Imaging. Bottom line, breast cancer is more politically important than other cancer, is that fair or medically responsible? Politics plays an undeniable role, I don't want any politician to tell my doctor how to practice medicine. Third- If you allow any type of "public option" all other insurance will go away unless you are very wealthy and can afford a private doctor. Employers (which I am one of) will not be able to offer private insurance and pay additional taxes to cover the public option. I like every other employer would be forced to offer public insurance. Once everyone is on the public option the goverment runs healthcare, period. The only part of healthcare that the government currently runs is the VA. Look into the quality and service at the VA, it won't be hard to find many recent articles, just try Google. If you like what you find then go with a govt plan.
Bottom line- Govt insurance just doesn't meet the expectations of the American public. We like to go to the doctor, and we like state of the art care and all of the new technology. Socialized Medicine doesn't support those expectations. The current system is broken, but a govt plan isn't the answer.
The fraud that currently exists in Medicare and Medicaid could fund insurance for the uninsurred. Experts estimate that this fraud amounts to between 40 and 100 billion dollars. (another thing wrong with govt care) Look into the real statistics for the uninsurred. Most uninsurred are not the working poor or children or single mom's. Let's get them coverage that is affordable. They need it, but the public shouldn't be made to pay for insurance for 20 or 30 somthings that ellect not to pay for insurance so they can have more money for other stuff, believeing that they won't get sick.
It's time that we deal with the realities of the problem, not just idealism on either side.
Bill, you are parsing words. To pretend that even 75% of Bush's $780 billion giveaway is not playing a very major part of Medicare's financial problems is disingenuous. Okay, you didn't say exactly that, but you made a heavy implication. And no, it isn't its only problem. It has the same fraud and abuse and overuse existing in the private system, though to a lesser amount.
And you must quit assuming that "insurance" is the same thing as "care." Under a Medicare-for-all system your "care" will not change. Yes, your insurance buddies will have to go elsewhere for their profits, but your employer will applaud it and you will be less likely to be laid off or lose your insurance. But if you have a really, really generous employer with all kinds of excessive profits to blow, he can buy you a special outlier policy that covers anything not paid for by Medicare. Or you can pay for it yourself! Now there's a novel idea.
The rest of your arguments I've answered above, or not answered if there was no clear answer.
And Eric, you've painted a sky-is-falling scenario. Yes, anything can happen. But if we implemented a single-payer system and adjusted tax revenues to compensate, it would not contribute to the deficit. Even if we increased taxes and provided health care to all, and protected our corporations from unfair competition from abroad and helped to keep jobs in the US, 70% of the public supports that tax increase. Some of you may not, and you've got the insurance industry buying off your favorite politicians to prevent a national fix. Lucky you.
And to paint a scenario where payments to physicians would go down to Medicaid levels, which is below cost, is simply not going to happen nor could it. 100% of physicians would walk. Would some of those making a million a year have to take a cut? Likely so, and they might have to live on $200K instead.
You act as though a 20% cut in reimbursement is bad, even when they are overcharging by 400% in the first place.
>>> "I like every other employer would be forced to offer public insurance."
Hogwash. No employer will be forced into the public plan if they are already providing suitable coverage. For those not providing health care they'd have to pay a tax (perhaps 8% of wages).
>>> "Govt insurance just doesn't meet the expectations of the American public."
Hogwash. I'm on a govt plan (Medicare) and my care has not changed from when I was on a private plan.
The reality of the problem, Eric, is that we could provide 100% of the population with first-class Cheney care and save the public $400 billion per year by implementing a Medicare-for-all system that removed the health care burden from employers and made them more competitive with product from overseas. But we have a set of political problems: Ideologues that oppose all government involvement, insurance CEOs and shareholders that benefit from the current public rip-off, and politicians who are willing to sell their constituents down the drain for a buck.
First off, if we hope to have a mature discussion of this issue, let's drop the term socialist. This health care plan is about as socialist as our police and fire protection.
You all are business people, so who would be more efficient? A business that has to diddle around continually with its health insurance coverage or one that can focus on its core competencies? Any company of a decent sized has to spent zillions of HR hours folling around with this benefit. Don't you think the talent could be applied better in other areas?
John Torinus is one of the sharpest business people in the state, but he has this obsession with so-called "consumer-based" health care. I'll bet you he and others at Serigraph have to spend an awful lot of time dealing with their insurance plan.
One other thing. You can pick apart what is being done elsewheere, though for the most part your criticisms are way of the mark of reality. At least in these other countries people are not going broke because of health care.
That is the real disgusting part. Victims of disease and physical problems in the US of A are being sacrificed on the altar of some bogus notion of the "free market." Pretty damn cruel.
Let's make a deal. You don't call what we want as socialist health care, we won't call what we have fascist health care. Hope you all are sharp enough to recognize this as a tease.
I agree Keith, and we should stop invoking slippery-slope scare tactics.
I suppose our side could ask "what if congress mandates that everybody with insurance keep and pay for that insurance no matter how poor of coverage it degrades to, and regardless of whether they lost their jobs. They must keep it because the industry vitally needs stability, which is more important than a free market!"
Remember that we are talking about a corrupt congress on the payroll of the insurance industry and anything is possible.
Will that ever happen? No. Nor will the other doomsday scares. Let's fix this system so we can go on and repair our country.
Regarding the idea that National Healthcare reimbursement won't drop to Medicaid levels - Maybe the premise that Medicaid reimbursement for all (or at least everyone being added to the public option) isn't so far fetched. It;s important to keep in mind that 20% of Medicare fees are either the responsibility of the patient (or their insurance company)This is why most seniors buy additional coverage or opt for Medicare repalcement coverage at no cost.
Labling everyone that is concerned with single payer healthcare as a tool of the insurance industry is also riddiculous. A change needs to be made, I just don't want the same corrupt system that you insist is giving the farm to the insurnace industry taking control of everyone's health.
Just to summarize- single-payer national healthcare "could remove burden from employers" and put the burden on the employees- specifically taxpayers that don't work for the government and are not union members. This is not a step forward for those the burden will be placed upon. See the following- http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=331943783298135
For the record, I have NEVER supported Obamacare because (a) nobody knows what that is yet and (b) the Dems are as corrupted by the $46 million in insurance industry bribes as are the R's. Nothing coming out of this congress will have any promise, and will continue transferring wealth to the insurance industry and continue to screw the low and middle class.
I have always supported just one program: Medicare-for-all paid for by our national infrastructure. You guys can speculate all you want, but I will agree with you that what we get will not be pretty. The "public option" will likely be some form of Medicaid.
Remember what Winston Churchill said: "America will always do the right thing, but only after everything else fails."
I think until Obama gets the political bribes out of the system virtually nothing productive will happen. That may satisfy some of you; it doesn't me. One way the are looking at funding health care is through taxing the rich, which I object to on my blog.
And just for the record, Eric, I'm on Medicare and the government doesn't control my health. I and my private doctor do, and if there is a procedure that Medicare does not support I can buy it on the outside; the good, old-fashioned free market way. With cash dollars.
IF they did this right, and there is virtually zero possibility that they will do it right, a Medicare-for-all system will eliminate the Medicaid and BadgerCare systems.
Jack, I'm with you on these critical points. We need to start with each election and us some new blood that cares more about the people than the wallet.