A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health - page 5

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   HM2VikingRN
    from the american prospect:

    the government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state.
    france's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the world health organization to rank it the finest in the world (america's system came in at no. 37, between costa rica and slovenia). the french can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed.

    in order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way health savings accounts threaten to do -- the [french] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. in addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.
    the french do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. it's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.
    source: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations .

    a health care system that ranks first in the world at half the cost. this system could work here essentially "off the shelf." what is especially useful about this system is the emphasis on prevention of complications from chronic illness as well as the emphasis on pharmaceutical reimbursement based on research driven efficacy measures.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 4, '07
  2. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from jyoung1950
    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.
    Can you provide an Evidence Based and literature driven/sourced argument to support this assertion?

    The literature and links that I have posted over time in other threads say otherwise.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 4, '07
  3. by   CRNA2007
    If you read the posts then you would understand the questions I was directing my answers at, and no clarification would be necessary.

    Quote from Cosper123
    I read them, and stand by what I said.

    So, this is the point where you enlighten me...Please make it "obvious" to the rest of us.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from crna2007
    it won't be only slightly higher try double or triple. are you willing to pay that? be careful what you ask hillary for you just may get it.
    inaccurate statement


    a universal public system would be financed this way: the public financing already funneled to medicare and medicaid would be retained. the difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). the payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. the income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. for the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness.
    employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. for large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). no employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. and health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.


    do you see how single payer actually works to bring about real economic competition?
  5. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from Alois Wolf
    I guess this would be a good time to find sources for my info too.

    Income Gap

    National Debt

    Social Security/Medicare going Bankrupt
    Please see Ezra Klein at:

    By now, you folks well know my obsession with pointing out that Medicare's costs will blow up not because of demographics, but because of the same cost growth afflicting the private sector Here, however, is a nice, colorful chart making the point:

    As you can see, demographics make a rather small portion of the whole. If you want to save the budget, you have to get the system's spending under control. There's no other way.

    Source: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/charts/index.html
  6. by   HM2VikingRN


    The point of the previous 3 graphs is that exploding medical costs from the allegedly more efficient private health insurance plans are driving the system over a cliff.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 4, '07
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from Alois Wolf
    I guess this would be a good time to find sources for my info too.

    Income Gap

    National Debt

    Social Security/Medicare going Bankrupt
    Please see:

    Social Security is healthy and successful. There is no crisis. The president and the Republicans in Congress are trying to scare the American people in order to destroy the most successful program in American history -- a program that presidents from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Harry Truman to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have been committed to preserving.


    Funny he should ask. The Political Animal graphics team had a similar thought last night, but I foolishly ignored them. So Silent E, this chart's for you: a year-by-year rundown of how much time is left until the Social Security trustees predict Social Security doom. Remarkably, no matter how much time goes by, we never seem to actually get any closer.
    There's a very serious point to be made here. Projections of Social Security solvency are based on projections of future economic growth, and the Social Security trustees have been systematically too pessimistic about the economy for the past decade. What's more, there are good reasons to think that they're probably still being overly pessimistic.

    The fear mongering about SS and Medicare are not supported by the data.

    The thing to really think about is that if we achieve an administrative cost ratio of 5% for all medical expenses (which is what medicare operates under) that each of these graphs for medical care costs would be reduced by 25%. (30% administrative costs-25% administrative cost reduction yields 5%) This would do wonders to bring solvency into the federal and state budget pictures. It would also allow GM to go back into the car business instead of the health insurance business.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    your point about economic wealth concentration and income disparity is supported by the following:

    who's we, kemosabe?

    this isn't the most shocking data in the world, but in this period of stock market hysteria, it's worth remembering that the majority of the country doesn't own any stock. indeed, the bottom 90 percent of us only own 20 percent of the market. the top 10 percent, by contrast, control 80 percent, with the top one percent of americans controlling an astounding 36.9%. what's that you say? you want to see this represented graphically?

    see those tiny slivers of checkered pink, blue, grey, and red? that's where most of the country is.
    source: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/charts/index.html accessed today.
  9. by   HM2VikingRN
    Honest debate requires sourced data.
  10. by   CRNA2007
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    From page 19:

    "The United States may be the only super power but compared to most other OECD Countries on selected key economic, social, and environmental indicators the United States ranks 16 out of 28."
    These key indicators include education, quality of life, science & technology, and energy.


    Instead of studying what the 15 countries doing better than the U.S.A. are doing right our government is asking other questions entirely.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Cosper123

    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?
    I think we DO have the best healthcare, in the world. At issue isn't the provision of care, but the financing of it. Even you admit this with your summation that the issue, for you, is single payor, a financing mechanism.

    You believe that better financing will lead to better care and so, improve upon these statistics.

    I agree.

    The problem is that the financing disaster we have now, third party payor, is the result of the government. You seem to assume that I'm advocating the status quo while you're advocating improving the system. Nothing could be further from the truth!

    I'm advocating improving the system. Since the chief problem with financing healthcare today is gov't interference in order to support employer sponsored insurance that takes away your decisions and places it in the hands of your employer and Uncle Daddy, I simply do not trust the gov't with yet another financing scheme of its creation.

    The gov't IS THE PROBLEM with healthcare financing today. Single payor is only bringing that level of gov't incompetence and control over your healthcare full circle. He who pays the bills decides the care. Uncle Daddy simply doesn't trust YOU to take care of your own healthcare.

    It's not a matter of whether single payor would be better than the current system. I don't think so. I think it's just more of the same. I think the result will be a fair share is reduced quality at longer waits. That IS the experience of single payor, world wide. The point is that the free market would be better than the current system. That's a no-brainer.

    There is no CHOICE but to reduce service and increase waits under single payor. It's the law of supply and demand. Gov't can't legislate that away. When you create unlimited demand, by declaring a product 'free', then you must either create unlimited supply (an impossibility) or ration supply.

    The free market is a much better choice for improving the system. We do NOT have a free market system in healthcare today. Today, we have a gov't financing scheme, third payor healthcare.

    Going to first payor, free market care will restore balance and make healthcare available for almost everybody. At THAT point, we can pick up the difference and ensure care, for all. It will only be affordable to do so, however, when we are allowed to pay for our own care.

    Here's how the market works: somebody wants to sell you something. They want to make a profit. In order to sell you something, you have to be willing and ABLE to pay for it. First payor will bring sanity because providers will only be able to charge what most people can actually PAY. This works. It works well.

    We do have a choice. You advocate more of the same - gov't interference in your healthcare. I advocate a different path, a path PROVEN to provide the best combination of quality and cost - the free market.

    Finally, let me suggest that 'everybody else is doing it' isn't such a great political argument in American politics. Americans like being mavericks. If everybody else was jumping off a cliff, would you? Then why would you create a defective healthcare product when the answer is much easier: get Washington out of your heathcare? They don't belong. The gov't NEVER had the right to step between you and your care. They certainly don't have the right to make your healthcare their monopoly.

    The problem with single-payor is that those that make the rules in gov't don't consider themselves accountable to you. Why should they, when greater than 90% routinely win re-election? They are bought and paid for, and it isn't by you. Gov't monopolies, like any monopoly, simply do not have your best interests at heart. When gov't starts using single payor to ration out your healthcare, it will be to the highest campaign bidders. Think Halliburton, in charge of your care. THAT is what is being offered. No, thanks.

    We've tried gov't financing schemes for healthcare for six decades now, and our current system is the result. It's time for a change.

    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 4, '07
  13. by   HM2VikingRN
    2 sources were from 1993, the last from 2007. The comptrollers source could in fact be used as the single strongest argument of all for single payer.

    The real issue remains that our health care is costing at least 20% more than it should. The drive for profit is resulting in an ever upward spiral in costs. The cost projections could be reduced by 20% by adopting medicare for all. Traditional medicare operates around 5% for administrative fees vs 31% for our non-system. In any event containing the administrative fee monster flattens the health care growth curve dramatically.

    The FEHP keeps medical inflation for its beneficiaries in the single digits simply because of the power of the large groups being able to negotiate better prices and services for its beneficiaries.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 4, '07