The 663 Million Dollar Question - page 5

Yet another argument for universal access and/or a single payer plan. Gov. Tim Pawlenty asked an interesting question recently: "How much would it cost to provide health insurance to every... Read More

  1. by   HM2VikingRN
    while i might agree that the 'big picture' of entitlement spending is beyond the scope of a single thread, valid comparisons to similar entitlement spending is on point. if you want to examine a position, comparing it with similar models already in existence is exactly on point. and adding to an already growing and out of control entitlement nightmare with yet more unfunded liability spending is also on point.

    and call me cynical but i just don't see turning such services over to the gov't will reduce administrative costs. the gov't is infamous for its over- administration, otherwise known as beauracracy, or simply, red-tape.

    comment:i am more than willing to listen to the other side of any issue. i will always give you the courtesy of sourced documents through internet linkages so you can evaluate my ideas based on empirical data. i respectfully disagree with your assertion that government run organizations are inherently inefficient. please see the following reference for another side to the costs of administering social security. (.6 cents vs. 15 cents in britain or chile for private accounts.)i agree that entitlement spending needs to be addressed but the first place to look is not cutting benefits for the least well off of our society. the bush tax cuts predominantly benefit the wealthiest members of our society and are an entitlement program that is estimated to cost 2.4% of gdp over the next 40 years. fixing social security is less than 1% of gdp. one of the dirty secrets about the bush tax plan is that warren buffets secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does. one way to fix the costs of entitlement programs is to assess the same level of payroll tax against capital gains and dividends as is currently assessed against income earned through work. that is one example of real tax fairness.

    and your observations take into account that users of a universal system will completely eliminate uninsured expenses. in fact, many of the same inappropriate users of the healthcare system (usings ers for primary care) will continue to do so, merely transferring the costs to the new system (not eliminating them).

    (yes, states must balance their budgets, but the cost will merely be transferred to higher tax obligations and decreasing job creation pressures that will occur as a result of tying up billions in gov't programs instead of allowing it to remain in the private, economic arena. the problems will grow as a result of huge unfunded liabilities and so, affect the future prosperity of our children. they will have to pay for ever increasing programs with ever shrinking resources.)

    comment: i think reducing financial barriers to access will ultimately increase patient usage of primary care clinics and/or urgent care centers with a reduction of emergency room visits. we can’t save our way out of this problem but we can certainly try to reduce costs. funding streams are available but most of universal access will be paid for by more efficient usage of current resources. what are your ideas to improve access to health care? i think that the single largest entitlement program that we need to address is the bush tax cut program as that is in effect selling our country each day to the chinese.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Aug 23, '06