A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 13

From Bloomberg: Universal Health Care Six in 10 people surveyed say they would be willing to repeal tax cuts to help pay for a health-care program that insures all Americans. ... Most of the... Read More

  1. by   teeituptom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    We have very different ideas about institutional versus individual roles in such things. You can't have FREEDOM if you are a slave to the gov't.

    And, as it happens, I don't particularly believe in democracy. Our framers had a healthy fear of mob rule. They didn't trust what a bare majority of 'we the people' would do to the minority. So, thankfully, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a REPUBLIC. When people say democracy today, what they MEAN is democratic Republic. There is a difference and the difference is in the curbing effect of mob rule.

    (America never had a Civil War, but that's an aside - there has never been a time when two factions of Americans shed blood in order to vie for control of the gov't. That is the definition of a Civil War. The War of Northern Aggression doesn't technically meet that definition. But, I digress.)

    And, the free market IS A PLAN. The less gov't interference, the more properous individuals become. My plan to improve the country is to LIMIT GOV'T AT EVERY POSSIBLE STEP. Not better regulate it; eliminate it.

    The more we do that, the better we will be as a nation. I would vote in favor of a plan to force the gov't to reduce its spending, by 10% a year, until only those powers enumerated to it were funded. That would be about 30% of our current yearly spending. Take the rest, pay down the debt over 5 yrs (easy to do, once you wean out 2 trillion from our yearly 3 trillion dollar budget).

    The gov't IS THE PROBLEM. It's the problem with healthcare, today. Expand its role in healthcare and you only multiple the problem.

    See, I too, believe in this nation. The values of this nation started with a premise that We the People meant the gov't had - and should have - no real power over us. Federal gov't power was almost exclusively limited to foreign affairs. With that simple guideline, we set an example the world is still trying to emulate, over 200 yrs later.

    I belive in the values of this nation. Turning our rights over to gov't, wholesale? That is a repudiation of those values. It is a repudiation of 'We the People".

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Believe in the government, and that belief shall set you free

    I believe in Democracy

    I believe in Libertarians

    I believe in the Green party

    I wont digress to your erroneous ideas of the Civil War

    The free market isnt a plan, its throwing all your chips in the air and hoping to still play them when and where they land.It anarchial.

    I see UHC as a 4th branch of Government myself

    we arent turning our rights over to the government, just our health care.
  2. by   HM2VikingRN
    And not even our health care. We are putting a leash on the market so that 25% of our health care dollars can no longer be stolen in the name of "administration and profit." Its about time that providers and patients were able to seek each other out not based on some PPO or managed care system Every provider should be accessible to every patient. Every patient should have a medical home and a primary care doctor.
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    And not even our health care. We are putting a leash on the market so that 25% of our health care dollars can no longer be stolen in the name of "administration and profit." Its about time that providers and patients were able to seek each other out not based on some PPO or managed care system Every provider should be accessible to every patient. Every patient should have a medical home and a primary care doctor.
    That money is only "stolen" with gov't collusion that prevents the real competition that would bring the best mix of quality and pricing. In fact, it really isn't stolen at all. That excess greed is bought and paid for, with campaign contributions and lobbyists.

    The fox is this henhouse is the GOVERNMENT.

    What? You think your best interests will EVER outcompete the real competition in healthcare today - the rush to sway your congressman to change this loophole or that. The gov't is sold to the highest bidder. Unless you are that bidder, you are nobody special.

    So, by all means, having free reign of the henhouse isn't enough; let's make the fox the sole, unaccountable guardian of this henhouse. Only it can prevent what it causes? How circularly depressing.

    No.

    How incredibly uncompassionate.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 13, '07
  4. by   CseMgr1
    Quote from jyoung1950
    In this day and age, we are seeing extreme greed on the part of our CEO's and Presidents of many companies and this seems to run rampant in healthcare. I doubt very much that they will adjust their salaries and benefits lower to help the hired help (i.e., registered nurses, radiologists, respiratory therapists, etc.).
    I witnessed this firsthand, while I was working as a Case Manager for a major HMO several years ago. Our CEO netted a cool $32 million in bonuses from a merger with another insurance company...just as my requisition for a new stapler had been denied, and our workforce reduced to the point where it was becoming next to impossible to take care of our Members. I quit after that, no longer willing to be associated with this mindless Corporate greed. :angryfire
  5. by   HM2VikingRN
    From PNHP:
    What about medical research?

    Much current medical research is publicly-financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. A great deal of drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in when it comes to marketing successful new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. All the expensive clinical trials were conducted with government money. When it was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company. (This is a controversial practice because it means pharmaceutical companies enjoy significant profits on the back of taxpayer-financed research.)
    Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries that have national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The new treatment to cure juvenile diabetics by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
    Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...dical_research

    I hardly think that medical innovation would be choked by a single payer system. If anything single payer would free up additional financial resources for research activities.
  6. by   CRNA2007
    Wow I didn't realize there were no administrative costs associated with the federal government.


    Quote from HM2Viking
    And not even our health care. We are putting a leash on the market so that 25% of our health care dollars can no longer be stolen in the name of "administration and profit." Its about time that providers and patients were able to seek each other out not based on some PPO or managed care system Every provider should be accessible to every patient. Every patient should have a medical home and a primary care doctor.
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    Medicare operates at 5% administrative cost. Private insurance 15-25%. Do the math on which is more efficient.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    https://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-019.html

    "Fortunately, there is a solution to the predicament (gov't interference in the financing of healthcare). The key is recognizing exactly what is driving spending through the roof. While many conditions have contributed to the spending explosion, one stands out as the fundamental problem with the U.S. health care system today: the consumer, the patient, has been cut out of the decisionmaking loop. Of every health care dollar spent in this country, 76 cents are paid by someone other than the actual patient--by the government, insurers, or employers. Consequently, in most situations patients neither benefit when they spend wisely nor bear the consequences of spending foolishly. With those incentives, it is no surprise that costs are soaring."

    Ten Advantages of Medical Savings Accounts

    1. The cost of health insurance would be lower.

    MSAs would allow people to substitute less costly self-insurance for more costly third-party insurance for small medical bills. To the degree they were self-insured, people would no longer face premium increases caused by the wasteful consumption decisions of others. And to the extent that third-party insurance was reserved for truly risky, catastrophic events, the cost per dollar of coverage would be much lower than it is today.


    2. The administrative costs of health care would be lower.

    Because we rely on third parties to pay a large part of almost every medical bill, unnecessary and burdensome paper-work is created for doctors, hospital administrators, and insurers. By one estimate, as much as $33 billion a year in administrative costs could be saved by the general use of Medical Savings Accounts.


    3. The cost of health care would be lower.

    Medical Savings Accounts would institute the only cost-control program that has ever worked: patients' avoiding waste because they have a financial incentive to do so. When people spent money from their MSAs, they would be spending their own money, not someone else's--an excellent incentive to buy prudently. By one estimate, the general use of Medical Savings Accounts would reduce total health care spending by almost one-fourth.


    4. Financial barriers to purchasing health care would be removed.

    Under the current system, employers are responding to rising costs of health insurance by increasing employee deductibles and copayments. Market prices are also encouraging people who buy their own health insurance to opt for high deductibles and copayments. One problem with that trend is that people with low incomes who live from paycheck to paycheck may forgo medical care because they cannot pay their share of the bill. Medical Savings Accounts would ensure that funds were available when people needed them.


    5. Financial barriers to purchasing health insurance during periods of unemployment would be removed.

    Under current law, people who leave an employer who provided their health insurance are entitled to pay the premiums and extend their coverage for 18 months. Yet the unemployed are the people least likely to be able to afford those premiums. Medical Savings Accounts would solve that problem by providing funds that were separate from those available for ordinary living expenses. MSA funds might also be used to purchase between-school-and-work policies or between-job policies of the types already marketed.


    6. The doctor-patient relationship would be restored.

    Medical Savings Accounts would give individuals direct control over their health care dollars, thereby freeing them from the arbitrary, bureaucratic constraints often imposed by third-party insurers. Physicians would view patients rather than third-party payers as the principal buyers of health care services and would be more likely to act as agents for their patients rather than for an institutional bureaucracy.


    7. We would enjoy the advantages of a competitive medical marketplace.

    Patients who enter hospitals can neither obtain a price in advance nor understand the charges afterward. Those problems have been created by our system of third-party payment and are not natural phenomena of the marketplace. When patients pay with their own money (as is the case for cosmetic surgery in the United States and most routine surgery at private hospitals in Britain), they usually get a package price in advance and can engage in comparison shop- ping.


    8. We would enjoy the advantages of real health insurance.

    Because health insurance today is largely prepayment for consumption of medical care, people with preexisting health problems often cannot buy insurance to cover other health risks. Medical Savings Accounts would encourage a market for genuine catastrophic health insurance and would make such insurance available to more people.


    9. Incentives for better choices of lifestyle would be created.

    Because MSAs would last people's entire lives, they would allow individuals to engage in lifetime planning and act on the knowledge that health and medical expenses are related to their choices about lifestyle. People would bear more of the costs of their bad decisions and reap more of the benefits of their good ones. Those who did not smoke, ate and drank in moderation, refrained from drug use, and otherwise engaged in safe conduct would realize greater financial rewards for their behavior.


    10. Health insurance options during retirement would be expanded.

    Most Medical Savings Accounts would eventually become an important source of funds with which to purchase health insurance or make direct payments for medical expenses during retirement. Such funds would help solve the growing problem of long-term care for the elderly.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   CRNA2007
    The 15-25% the private insurance would cost.



    Quote from HM2Viking
    Medicare operates at 5% administrative cost. Private insurance 15-25%. Do the math on which is more efficient.
  10. by   CRNA2007
    As my buddy George would say "sounds like some fuzzy math"

    http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf

    http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...trative-costs/

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...4/161041.shtml

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/octobe...ishonest_r.php

    Quote from HM2Viking
    Medicare operates at 5% administrative cost. Private insurance 15-25%. Do the math on which is more efficient.
  11. by   nicurn001
    do you read the links you quote , for example you refer to buddy George comment "sounds like fuzzy math " , this certainly seems to be the case re. your argument here about administrative cost . At the end of the article , in the Pnhp link ,it says
    "So how might this apply to the "non-benefit" costs of the private insurance industry? Although they insure about two-thirds of us, they pay only about one-fourth of our health care costs. Thus the private sector insurance industry has used the power of the market successfully to avoid paying for about three-fourths of our $2.2 trillion health care expenditures, shifting about $1.7 trillion to us as individuals and as taxpayers. The "non-benefit" cost to us of the care they have avoided covering is about $17 trillion! That is more than our $13 trillion GDP! "

    then finishes with

    " Enough of these silly games! What we need to carry on the health reform debate are the true facts and legitimate analyses of the policy implications. What we don't need is to read more dishonest reports while the ideologues opposed to health care justice snicker in the background."

    Fortunately we only have to share about one year more of a relationship with bud GW . I don't care who takes over from him as long as they can do the job more effectively.Somebody who will take credit for their sucess ,except responsibilty for their failures and learn from both .
  12. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    https://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-019.html

    "Fortunately, there is a solution to the predicament (gov't interference in the financing of healthcare). The key is recognizing exactly what is driving spending through the roof. While many conditions have contributed to the spending explosion, one stands out as the fundamental problem with the U.S. health care system today: the consumer, the patient, has been cut out of the decisionmaking loop. Of every health care dollar spent in this country, 76 cents are paid by someone other than the actual patient--by the government, insurers, or employers. Consequently, in most situations patients neither benefit when they spend wisely nor bear the consequences of spending foolishly. With those incentives, it is no surprise that costs are soaring."

    Ten Advantages of Medical Savings Accounts

    1. The cost of health insurance would be lower.

    MSAs would allow people to substitute less costly self-insurance for more costly third-party insurance for small medical bills. To the degree they were self-insured, people would no longer face premium increases caused by the wasteful consumption decisions of others. And to the extent that third-party insurance was reserved for truly risky, catastrophic events, the cost per dollar of coverage would be much lower than it is today.


    2. The administrative costs of health care would be lower.

    Because we rely on third parties to pay a large part of almost every medical bill, unnecessary and burdensome paper-work is created for doctors, hospital administrators, and insurers. By one estimate, as much as $33 billion a year in administrative costs could be saved by the general use of Medical Savings Accounts.


    3. The cost of health care would be lower.

    Medical Savings Accounts would institute the only cost-control program that has ever worked: patients' avoiding waste because they have a financial incentive to do so. When people spent money from their MSAs, they would be spending their own money, not someone else's--an excellent incentive to buy prudently. By one estimate, the general use of Medical Savings Accounts would reduce total health care spending by almost one-fourth.


    4. Financial barriers to purchasing health care would be removed.

    Under the current system, employers are responding to rising costs of health insurance by increasing employee deductibles and copayments. Market prices are also encouraging people who buy their own health insurance to opt for high deductibles and copayments. One problem with that trend is that people with low incomes who live from paycheck to paycheck may forgo medical care because they cannot pay their share of the bill. Medical Savings Accounts would ensure that funds were available when people needed them.


    5. Financial barriers to purchasing health insurance during periods of unemployment would be removed.

    Under current law, people who leave an employer who provided their health insurance are entitled to pay the premiums and extend their coverage for 18 months. Yet the unemployed are the people least likely to be able to afford those premiums. Medical Savings Accounts would solve that problem by providing funds that were separate from those available for ordinary living expenses. MSA funds might also be used to purchase between-school-and-work policies or between-job policies of the types already marketed.


    6. The doctor-patient relationship would be restored.

    Medical Savings Accounts would give individuals direct control over their health care dollars, thereby freeing them from the arbitrary, bureaucratic constraints often imposed by third-party insurers. Physicians would view patients rather than third-party payers as the principal buyers of health care services and would be more likely to act as agents for their patients rather than for an institutional bureaucracy.


    7. We would enjoy the advantages of a competitive medical marketplace.

    Patients who enter hospitals can neither obtain a price in advance nor understand the charges afterward. Those problems have been created by our system of third-party payment and are not natural phenomena of the marketplace. When patients pay with their own money (as is the case for cosmetic surgery in the United States and most routine surgery at private hospitals in Britain), they usually get a package price in advance and can engage in comparison shop- ping.


    8. We would enjoy the advantages of real health insurance.

    Because health insurance today is largely prepayment for consumption of medical care, people with preexisting health problems often cannot buy insurance to cover other health risks. Medical Savings Accounts would encourage a market for genuine catastrophic health insurance and would make such insurance available to more people.


    9. Incentives for better choices of lifestyle would be created.

    Because MSAs would last people's entire lives, they would allow individuals to engage in lifetime planning and act on the knowledge that health and medical expenses are related to their choices about lifestyle. People would bear more of the costs of their bad decisions and reap more of the benefits of their good ones. Those who did not smoke, ate and drank in moderation, refrained from drug use, and otherwise engaged in safe conduct would realize greater financial rewards for their behavior.


    10. Health insurance options during retirement would be expanded.

    Most Medical Savings Accounts would eventually become an important source of funds with which to purchase health insurance or make direct payments for medical expenses during retirement. Such funds would help solve the growing problem of long-term care for the elderly.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    I heard some interesting info on Fox News a few days ago,there was discussion regarding the lack of clarity in the Republican stance on health care reform. Those that were present in this discussion agreed that the Medical Savings Account was not feasable and should be benched. There was also agreement that the Republicans MUST come up with some SOLID ideas about healthcare, IF they are to have a chance of winning in 2008.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Nov 14, '07
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    I heard some interesting info on Fox News a few days ago,there was discussion regarding the lack of clarity in the Republican stance on health care reform. Those that were present in this discussion agreed that the Medical Savings Account was not feasable and should be benched. There was also agreement that the Republicans MUST come up with some SOLID ideas about healthcare, IF they are to have a chance of winning in 2008.
    Fox transcripts lots of stuff on its site. Please cite this. I don't think MSA would work, ALONE, either.

    Combine it with unhitching insurance from employment, and making insurance actually insurance instead of pre-paid healthcare - and it would do wonders.

    I linked an article a few pages back. Come general election run, you are going to hear Dems saying that the Republican plan is TOO RADICAL A CHANGE, compared to what they are wanting to do. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...682269,00.html

    The free market is the true change from 60 yrs of financing failure. The gov't's manipulation and gaming of healthcare is why we have a mess now. I have no faith in its abilities to 'change its ways' if only we give it more reward for its current gluttony and sloth.

    MSAs are but one link in the process of reform. It is a potent link, however, because it would RESTORE first payor healthcare: you paying the bills, you minding the store. Competition would do wonders for healthcare - JUST LIKE IT DOES, EVERYPLACE ELSE IT'S TRIED.

    I think you write off the free market as an alternative much too quickly. The public wants change, that is true. Don't be too surprise that, when the options are explained to them, they don't rush right out and hand over their freedom to choose healthcare to Uncle Daddy. A change that doesn't involve taxes and DOES involve increased choice will compete quite well against the just fear of gov't bureaucracy. As much as you want to cite any current gov't restricted model, the downfalls in waiting and cut services are there to be pointed out, as well. "Access to a waiting list is NOT access to healthcare." - Canadian Supreme Court. Really?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 14, '07

close