A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 4
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
Nov 1, '07Quote from oldiebutgoodieSomething like what Romney did in Massachusetts ?Well, throughout this debate we are talking about single payor.
I think that one issue is that health insurance is basically linked to employment, which is a bad idea.
So, how can we "unlink" it?
1. National Health insurance
2. Give it all to the free market, and let everybody duke it out.
3. Maybe set up groups that aren't based on employers? What about groups underwritten per state?
Frankly, I'm not nuts about National Health Insurance, or the free market. If somehow groups could be underwritten that aren't linked to employment, that would spread out the risk. Unfortunately, I am not a policy wonk, so this is about as far as I go...
Interesting debate, however.
Key Details of the Bill
by Vikki Valentine
NPR.org, April 5, 2006 - Legislators say that by providing every Massachusetts resident with health insurance, the costs of health care are actually lowered.
For instance, the way the system works now, employers who offer insurance also have to pick up part of the tab for the cost of care for the uninsured at hospitals. By having more employers provide insurance, and having fewer uninsured people, these costs to employers go down. Analysts also say that adding more healthy people -- who use less care -- into the insurance system keeps deductibles and premiums down for all.
A look at how the bill would affect employers and individuals:
As of July 1, 2007, all individuals must have coverage.
-- Those below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (about $38,500 for a family of three), but not eligible for Medicaid, will have their private insurance plans subsidized at a sliding-scale rate.
-- Children whose families earn below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be given free coverage through Medicaid.
-- Individuals with incomes below the FPL ($9,600) will have premiums waived on private insurance. (Currently most childless adults, no matter what their income, are not eligible for coverage under the state's Medicaid plan.)
-- Those who can afford insurance will be increasingly penalized for not buying coverage. In the first year, they'll lose their state personal income tax exemption.
-- Family coverage will be extended to cover young adults up to the age of 25.
-- Allows the use of "health savings accounts" with cheaper high-deductible "catastrophic" coverage plans. HSAs allow consumers to invest money and withdraw it "tax free" to cover health-care costs.
All employers who have more than 10 employees must contribute to employee health-care costs.
-- Employers who don't provide insurance will pay an annual fee of $295 per full-time employee.
-- Encourages private insurers to offer more low-cost options.
-- Creates a "health insurance connector" to help individuals and businesses find affordable private coverage.
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Health Care for Everyone?
[FONT=Garamond, Times]We've found a way.
BY MITT ROMNEY
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT [FONT=Verdana, Times]BOSTON--Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."
[FONT=Verdana, Times]I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.
A compromise like this might be the way to go. Given the choice of this or maintaining the status quo, I could back this program.
Nov 1, '07Just a thought for those who don't want government involved in their health care ,whose advice do you trust on any other matter .That which you receive from a disinterested party or that which you receive from somebody with a vested interest .
In health care as provided through a single payer , the amount available for healthcare is estsblished ,the physicians order treatment which is provided within the limits of the funding.
In the USA healthcare funding for the insurered is set by the insurer , the physician orders treatment ,then the Insurer ( who has a vested interest ) decides if the care is OK or denied.
I for one would prefer a single payer system for that reason alone.
Insurance and its profitability is based upon spreading risk , you can't spread risk through a larger group than a single provider would have.The larger the group the greater the economies in scale are.
Other advantages to Health care as I have experienced it in Europe are :
your employer is not your healthcare provider ,so they do not have to bear those cost ,can be more profitable , so your job is more secure.
When you change jobs / take a prolonged leave eg. during pregnancy / after child is born, healthcare provision is uninterrupted ,no 3 month waiting period, or period in which you have to pay much higher costs.
When you get sick and need your healthcare ,you do not face the risk of losing your insurance ,then everything you own ,because you lose your coverage and are now uninsurable.
OK as to rationing of care ,that is a description that can be applied to both the European healthcare and USA Healthcare system ( managed care is the US euphemism for rationing).
Nov 2, '07NICURN makes very good point about 'spreading the risk.' That is a big reason our current system isn't working is people don't stay in jobs like they used to so there are alot of gaps in coverage.....the 'risk pools' aren't working as they should.
For example, my 22 y.o. BIL had very good health insurance with a job - until he quit. He should have gotten COBRA, but being young with no health problems he didn't.
Only a couple weeks later, he was visiting friends in a small town in wyoming on July 4th and they were lighting off fireworks (and drinking) as he was lighting one he burned his hand- 2nd degree.
He went to the ER via ambulance and this hospital couldn't treat burns, so he was flown by Lifeflight to a larger hospital, where he was treated.
i know that the air ambulance alone cost over $8000....let alone the hospital stays. He isn't the most reputable character anyway and hasn't paid any of these bills, not that he can working in low wage jobs....so the costs are passed on to those who 'can' pay. I suspect he quit a job b/c a hosp. garnished wages, as well - and he doesn't have assets that they can go after.
should he not have gotten treatment b/c he didn't have insurance? I go back and forth on this one. who is to decide?
Another example.....myself. I was about to quit a job when i found out I was pregnant. I stayed with the job just to get health insurance. I quit only a couple months after I had the baby and after making a $13,000 claim to this companies health insurance. The remaining employees are the ones who have to absorb this cost in the way of higher premiums - and i know they did raise the premiums quite alot the next year. Is that fair? but that is just the way the system is working at present.
Nov 2, '07my reaction resulted from broad overreaching generalities and refusals to respond with data when asked over a series of posts:
i know. it's called life, and guess what... it ain't fair. next i suppose someone is going to suggest people who don't have house insurance and their house burns down should get a new house.
wow, your family would allow you to die homeless and on the streets?interesting...
it is not my responsibility to provide my neighbors health care nor his to provide mine.
data doesn't really matter when we are hearing from canadians directly about how miserable their health system is.
as far as children going hungry i don't see it. we give out free lunches, free breakfasts, and we have a huge epidemic in childhood obesity.
everyone knows the canadian system is horrible.
those poor canadians. just think if we socialize our system, then where will all the canadians go for decent healthcare and short wait times.
this woman gambled and lost. it's unfortunate that she has cancer but then again life isn't fair to most people at some point in their lives.
my intellectual reaction to your posts was to ask how can these statements be congruent with professional core nursing values. see:
"respect for the inherent worth and uniqueness of individuals and populations"
"acting in accordance with an appropriate code of ethics and accepted standards of practice"
"the right to self-determination"
"a concern for the welfare and well being of others"
"upholding moral, legal, and humanistic principles"
specifically my concerns about the tone and tenor of the posts were stimulated by:social justice implies that there is a fair and equitable distribution of benefits and bearing of burdens in a society (kneipp & snider, 2001). nurses who deeply value social justice may experience value-based conflict when working in a market justice health-care system. our profession embraces social justice (ana, 2001), yet nurses continue to tolerate disparities in health status and health care, especially as they exist in minority and vulnerable populations on local, state, national, and international levels (fahrenwald, 2003). source: nancy l. fahrenwald, susan d. bassett, lois tschetter, paula p. carson, lani white and venita j. winterboer, teaching core nursing values, journal of professional nursingvolume 21, issue 1, , january-february 2005, pages 46-51.
Nov 2, '07I have wondered how a government run health care system would affect salaries. If hospitals and all are still private, and take care of their own administrative policies and procedures, I foresee either cuts in healthcare workers' salaries or a long, long time before a raise comes through.
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.).
And, if a healthcare (or any business, for that matter) business is required to contribute to the universal health care as it has to for medicare and social security, this country is in for financial ruin and high unemployment.
Nov 2, '07Quote from spacenurseWhat is a windfall profit, exactly? More to the point, how would such an animal be any of the government's business?How about a windfall profits tax?
It's time for a fair, flat tax that doesn't involve revealing to the government how much you make. It's nunya.
Timothy.Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 2, '07
Nov 2, '07A flat tax, I agree with that. I also agree with the 'social justice' post. The disparities in healthcare really bother me. Our politicians and policy-makers seem to have no common sense sometimes. I had a patient recently, elderly and generally healthy fellow on SS and Medicare. He also happens to be pretty wealthy. He told me, "keep working hard and paying those taxes sweetheart so I can keep on golfing." I felt very insulted and it got me thinking...Here we are paying taxes to support his SS and healthcare via Medicare, while he truly has no need for the assistance. Meanwhile, some uninsured man, woman, or child in this country needs cancer treatment, a transplant, etc, and we (as a society) turn our backs on them. Where is the common sense in that? We will pay for preventative care on an 80 or 90 year old, but not a 3 year old? Before anyone jumps on me that the elderly have paid SS and Medicare taxes, so are now entitled to reap the benefits, I say many (if not most) are drawing out much, much more than they ever contributed. That's one of the reasons why the system is failing and why it is now an entitlement program. We need healtcare coverage for all citizens, although I agree I don't trust the people in Washington to provide a sane, sound system. That's why we need to get good, smart people elected, and not the same old, same old. We need to get universal healthcare and clean up politics by voting for the best and brightest.
Nov 3, '07Quote from dream'nWe should means-test SS and Medicare. It should be an insurance program. I only collect on insurance when I NEED it. Just because I pay my car insurance every month doesn't mean I'm ENTITLED to money. If you are rich, congrats on living the American dream - reapply for SS and Medicare if you need it.A flat tax, I agree with that. I also agree with the 'social justice' post. The disparities in healthcare really bother me. Our politicians and policy-makers seem to have no common sense sometimes. I had a patient recently, elderly and generally healthy fellow on SS and Medicare. He also happens to be pretty wealthy. He told me, "keep working hard and paying those taxes sweetheart so I can keep on golfing." I felt very insulted and it got me thinking...Here we are paying taxes to support his SS and healthcare via Medicare, while he truly has no need for the assistance. Meanwhile, some uninsured man, woman, or child in this country needs cancer treatment, a transplant, etc, and we (as a society) turn our backs on them. Where is the common sense in that? We will pay for preventative care on an 80 or 90 year old, but not a 3 year old? Before anyone jumps on me that the elderly have paid SS and Medicare taxes, so are now entitled to reap the benefits, I say many (if not most) are drawing out much, much more than they ever contributed. That's one of the reasons why the system is failing and why it is now an entitlement program. We need healtcare coverage for all citizens, although I agree I don't trust the people in Washington to provide a sane, sound system. That's why we need to get good, smart people elected, and not the same old, same old. We need to get universal healthcare and clean up politics by voting for the best and brightest.
I'm afraid that the ONLY way to get a sane healthcare system has nothing to do with electing the 'right' people in Washington, as if anybody we could elect could keep from being influenced by the money that floats around. No. You can't depend on an elected class to have YOUR best interest at heart. They are bought and paid for by the highest bidder and that ain't you. The only way to get a sane and sound healthcare system is to get Washington OUT OF THE PROCESS.
The mess in healthcare TODAY is the result of government interference with the provision of your care. As a result of Washington, YOU don't directly pay for your care and so, you don't care what it costs. A doctor's visit is 200 bucks? Who cares, your co-pay is only 25. MY current prescription drug costs 289.39 for a 3 month supply. Why should I care, as I only paid 60 (20 bucks a month).
Single payor system would be disaster greater than Third party payor has been. The dirty little secret: both the current disaster of a payment scheme and the proposed disaster of a payment scheme are brought to you, courtesy of government. Government schemes have been the PROBLEM with healthcare. How on earth do you expect more of the same to be the solution?
What we NEED is Federal legislators that understand what an enumerated power is. . . Unfortunately, to most of our citizens, the Constitution is just some vague principle and not a check against the power of government that it was intended to be.
Timothy.Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 3, '07
Nov 3, '07Quote from CRNA2007Umm...those who pay the "greater burden" of the taxes are not doing so due to some altruistic motivation, that's why it's called "taxes." How exactly does that equate to unselfishness?Please tell me who is more selfish. Those who continually pay a greater burden of the taxes in this country or those who continually reap those taxes without contributing to them?
As for those who continually reap those taxes without contributing...who exactly is this? And how does that apply to this thread?
Nov 3, '07Zashaglaka,
Is there any single payer system you could ever see any merit in? For example, what do you think of Germany's?
It really is only a matter of time before we have a single payer system of some sort. We are the only Western nation in the entire world who doesn't have some form of national care.
I take issue with your claim that the USA has the best health care in the world, considering...
Out of all the developed nations...we have the highest:
-Infant Mortality Rate
-Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds
-Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds
On the WHOs rankings of best health systems in the world...we are...37. That number is due largely to the fact that we don't have universal coverage, but that in and of itself is really an issue anyhow. What good is the best health care in the world if it only applies to the rich segment of the population?
Anyhow, is there any system in the world that you could see working here?
Nov 3, '07You obviously haven't read all the posts.
Quote from Cosper123Umm...those who pay the "greater burden" of the taxes are not doing so due to some altruistic motivation, that's why it's called "taxes." How exactly does that equate to unselfishness?
As for those who continually reap those taxes without contributing...who exactly is this? And how does that apply to this thread?
Nov 3, '07Quote from CRNA2007I read them, and stand by what I said.You obviously haven't read all the posts.
So, this is the point where you enlighten me...Please make it "obvious" to the rest of us.