Contrasting McCain and the Democrats on Health Care
March 22nd, 2008 at 08:36am Mark Noonan
Excellent article by Shawn Tully in Fortune. The highlights:
For McCain:
McCain’s main pillar is the elimination of a tax break that employees receive if their employer provides their health care. That may not sound like a shocker, but it is. The exclusion dates from World War II, when the federal government imposed controls on wages, but allowed companies to compete for workers by offering tax-free health benefits in lieu of pay. The law is largely responsible for the nightmarish patchwork of corporate-provided medical plans we enjoy so much today. Employees and their unions demanded richer and richer packages, and employers complied, since they could buy far more benefits for their employees than workers could buy with after-tax dollars on their own. Americans have paid a steep price, however, by sacrificing their raises as corporate insurance bills exploded, never more so than now.
McCain suggests that we junk all that. Say you’re earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you’re taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain’s plan, you’d also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees’ money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d’être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you’d have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That’s $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care.
For the Democrats:
The core of their plan is a “pay or play” option for employers. Large companies would have the choice of either providing benefits for workers or dropping their coverage. If they chose the latter, they would pay a mandatory payroll tax to support a new government-administered system. That system would have two parts: a Medicare-like public program, and a menu of private options similar to the generous plans available to U.S. government employees today. Workers who are self-employed or lack insurance would go straight into one of these two options. Low-income Americans would receive federal subsidies to purchase the premiums.
In practice, the system would quickly swell the ranks of Americans with government-paid health care. Remember, health-care costs are rising far faster than wages, so companies have a strong incentive to pay the tax and erase that rapidly growing burden from the books. It’s also likely that the government plan will offer better benefits than many, or perhaps most, corporate plans. In fact, the Democrats call for rich standard benefits packages based on the plan offered to federal employees. Those packages would have deductibles of just $300 and offer prescription drugs, mental health benefits, and “spinal manipulations” (i.e., chiropractic services), among a cornucopia of other benefits. As a result, the federal plan, potentially packed with new benefits pushed for by lobbyists for various medical specialties, will quickly cause an exodus from employer plans.
The standard benefits package isn’t just a bad idea because it will substantially raise the cost to taxpayers. It will also make it virtually impossible for Americans to buy insurance tailored to their needs. Suppose you’re one of those 25-year-olds. You probably don’t want to spring for a full-blown plan that covers old-age diseases like Alzheimer’s and would rather save some money and go with a low-premium, high-deductible plan. But the Democrat approach requires that any competing plans be “actuarily equivalent” (Clinton’s term) to the federal employee plan - which translates as a generous minimum standard for health insurance. “With that mandate, you rule out high-deductible plans,” says Gruber. “It would make it very difficult to design one that would qualify.”
McCain’s plan is strongest in that it turns health care power over to the health care consumers. The drawback for McCain is that Democrats and the MSM will simply lie about it - they’ll tell everyone that McCain’s plan is to cut benefits. Democrats plan is strongest in the fact that it seems like a good idea. The drawback is that it will eventually force everyone into government-mandated health care, thus giving us a medical system as dysfunctional as those of Canada and Britain. I believe this is integral to the Democrats’ plan - taking the individual out of the health care equation and setting up a one-size-fits-all HillBama bureaucratic nightmare, ’cause its “fair”, and “health care is a right”.
Men and women will prefer McCain’s plan - cowards and liberal dunderheads will prefer the Democratic plan. Which will win? Time will tell - though the November outcome will go a long ways towards deciding the issue.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
78 Comments
1. Contrasting McCain and th&hellip | March 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am
[...] Continue Reading [...]
2. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
100% of medical expenses should be tax deductible.
If the lefties are serious about helping the average citizen that is the first step. They should propose legislation immediately to make all medical expenses tax deductible!
while they are at it, since they complain about the high cost of gasoline, the next step is to eliminate taxes on gasoline and any other taxes related to it. But since they make more money in taxes on gasoline than the oil companies make in profits. They should also eliminate all the other fees and tarriffs, lease payments imposed on oil at all levels of production (producers, refiners, distributors, retailers, etc) to bring the cost down.
The government gets rich at our expense, whether is monetary, control or power over our lives. There are those that are willing to give their lives to government all in the name of “security”. And there are those that oppose these attempts at growing their power over the citizen.
But the libs will never give up revenue that falls into their hands to maintain their power.
The latest healthcare scams offered by the libs is an attempt to grow their power over the citizen and there are those that willing to give their lives to them.
3. js | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
I would like to see the Insurance industry properly regulated.
Health premiums are over 3 trillion dollars a year. In te USA, 31% of that total is consumed in overhead. The average in most other western nations is 10-11%.
Almost 1/3 of the money they suck out of corporations and individuals never see’s the health industry. Around 1 trillion dollars just goes byby. Consumers are getting a raw deal by paying for hundreds if not thousands of projects the Health Industry gets involved in. They use the Walmart template to do this. Instead of cutting dividends, and using corporate savings to finance expansions, they just raise the prices to pay for them, resulting in higher costs to the consumers they serve. They do not have to be able to afford to do something, all they have to do is raise thier prices and extract more and more from the consumer. The Insurance industry as a whole is a rip off. The Health Insurance industry is killing people by thier inflationary results, because people can not afford thier prices, and cannot get preventive healthcare because of it.
So when they play shuffle the pea, they will always ignore the real problem, because the consumers are paying them, through the insurance lobby, not to fix our problem. They dont have a choice. 1 trillion dollars buys a lot of influence in Congress, and neither Obama, Billery, or McCain have the courage to challenge it.
4. Aaron | March 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
McCain’s plan amounts to shifting the burden of insurance from corporations to the individual workers.
This has long been a goal of the various Right-wing groups nominally interested in health care “reform”. You see, the Right also sees a crisis in healthcare. But to them, this crisis is solely that the rising cost of insurance coverage for employees is taking an ever larger bite into corporate profits. How is a company able to continue pampering a top-heavy corporate executive tier of umpteen VP’s if they keep having to pay more for workers’ health care insurance? This executive tier needs to protect their multi-million dollar compensation packages many hundreds of times that average workers’ salary.
So what to do, what to do? Their solution is simple: give a tax cut for workers to buy their own insurance, this relieving companies from having to buy it. Couch that in pablum about “tax cuts for the working class”, “individual freedom”, “control over your own healthcare”, blah blah. But in reality, the tax cut granted to the worker to buy health insurance is really for the sole benefit of the corporations. The worker still gets the same shitty coverage as before, only now the company isn’t paying for it - instead it will be paid by the US Treasury. Companies get to shift the burden of health care insurance onto individuals - and voila! The healthcare crisis (as perceived by the Right) is solved!
5. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Aaron, elimination of tax breaks to corporations who provides health care insurance (by paying some or all of the premium) is a benefit to them?
How will the insurance companies make their money if they cannot woo the corporations to sign up with them? Now the masses can determine who their health provider will be rather than the corporation! Insurance companies will have to cater to the people rather than the corporation. Whereas, now, the corporation gets the benefit of a tax break for providing ANY coverage no matter how limited. Now if the people will had the option for the best plan, because a tax break is not at stake, but their own interest is, they will be more careful to get the best plan. The insurance company will have to cater to the individual if they want to continue to make money.
6. Some Assembly Required | March 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
McCain’s plan sounds fairly interesting. I like the fact that people would no longer have to wiegh jobs by the healthcare and benefits package they can offer. Though higher taxes for the working class offset by a tax rebate doesn’t sit very well for me. There is also the issue with his plan about Regulation of the health care industry. If it falls on the individual, how can they possibly prevent the insurance company from jacking up rates whenever they see fit. If a corporation of 1000’s of employees does not like the rate increase they have the power to threaten to take business elsewhere but not an individual.
The Dem’s plan seems like a realistic solution to me. Government officials are already using it. It’s working for them, so why not spread it to everyone. Companies are givin the option of covering their employees or not. If they don’t the individual can then receive proper healthcare with no worries about what will be covered or what constitutes as a pre-existing condition. Then theirs the issue of taxes. If I’m not mistaken the dem’s plan also will provide subsidized rates. So in theory, a tax increase would be offset by the government subsidy and you wouldn’t being paying much, if not anymore than what you pay now which is similar to the McCain rebate here.
Personally, I do not think this will be a strong issue for McCain. Working class people need healthcare they can rely on. This is part of the problem, people are wondering why they even pay into health insurance when they have to fight to be covered. This (in theory) would no longer be the case with the dems plan. Saying that, I don’t hear government employees complain over their health insurance so maybe it’s not so much ‘in theory’. IMO a tax increase would be the least of peoples worries if it meant they were covered when push comes to shove.
7. Almiranta | March 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
SAR, where in McCain’s plan do you see “.. higher taxes for the working class…” ? Are you referring to the sentence where it is explained that the worker would receive, in this example, an additional $9,000 in salary or wages, which would then result in additional taxes? If the phrase “…..an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes…..” is what caught your eye, you should have paid a little more attention to the entire sentence, which clearly stated that this taxpayer would gain a NET of $6,000. After his additional $3,000 in taxes, he would realize a net gain of $6,000.
On the surface the Dem plan doesn’t sound all that bad. But strip away all the verbiage and it is socialized medicine, with mandatory participation by both caregivers and patients, government control over all aspects of health care, and an exploding bureaurocracy.
All that means is skyrocketing taxes, an even vaster federal government, a barrage of lawsuits based on the unconstitutionality of imposing federal health care in the first place, and the end result of poorer quality health care.
When health care providers answer to a third party instead of to the consumer, quality falls. And when the provider knows that the consumer cannot go anywhere else for his care, quality drops.
No, moving health care into the government is a disasterous idea.
8. Almiranta | March 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Aaron, you and others on the far Left have always failed to understand a basic economic truth—that taxes on coroporations, as well as all other expenses to those corporations, are always passed on to the consumer. This includes health care costs.
The plan as outlined above shifts the expense from one category—insuranc premiums—to another, which is salary. The corporation will not save money.
Oh, at the beginning, it may, as it is not required to pay additional salary after its health care plan is removed. But just as employees now weigh the various health care plans offered by different employers, they will then weigh the salary differential, and salaries will have to come up to compensate for the loss of other types of benefits.
This knee-jerk anti-corporation rhetoric is soooo old-school socialism, based on a combination of ignorance about what corporations really are, emotion-based distrust of them, and antipathy to the free market system. But as usual, its arguments don’t hold water.
9. westmich | March 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Corporations can buy in bulk and receive discounts as a result. Individuals do not get this benefit. I know this first hand. As much as I love McCain, his plan will result individuals paying more and the gap between the haves and the have-nots will grow.
I work for a small company that has been doing pretty well since we got started in 2001, however, until the last year or so we’ve been pretty strapped for cash. Originally, we didn’t have insurance and then went to one of those HSA plans. Only now in the last few months have we gone to a real insurance plan - small co pays for doctor visits and prescriptions. THANK GOD! If it weren’t for this my family would probably have to consider bankruptcy in the near future. Are we exceptionally sick - no. Are we living above our means - no. But every trip to the doctor and pharmacy translates to hundreds of dollars. Which means every trip translates to a new monthly payment plan.
There isn’t much I want to see the government involved in, but over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that we need a single payer, universal system in this country or things are going to get a lot worse for everybody.
BTW, what information do you base running down Canadian and British systems on? I have been to both countries and talked to a few a people (not a reliable poll by any means). They seem pretty happy with their system and horrified by ours.
10. extramedium | March 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Yes Mark - please tell us what is so dysfunctional about the health care systems of Canada and Britain. Your views on the American health care system seem to hinge on it, so I think it’s important that you elaborate here.
11. Bedspread | March 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
As usual, the regular pinheads chime in with the talking points of the RNC.
The McCain plan is a farce. Do you robots think for one second that corporations will “make up” the 9K dollars in wages? You may cite the “competitiveness” in business, but the labor market (especially on the lower blue collar side) has plenty of selections to candidates to choose from. They WILL NOT make up the difference. You are living in a unrealistic world if you think they are going too.
Damn straight. Because it is. Sorry pinheads, take the “seems” out of it.
Part of the attraction of Coroprate CONTRIBUTIONS to health care is the fact that they can get better rates using GROUP plan discounts.
We will be reimbursed through a “rebate” reflected on our taxes. With the economy trashed under the Bush administration, the AVERAGE worker NEEDS cash on their paycheck. Not a “rebate” reflected on their tax levy. Taxes will just be passed to the state and we will have gotten NO net gain.
Cut the crap.
There is a glut of workers who work in the labor market for the few decent paying LABOR jobs available. The corps don’t care about losing them, they are replaceable.
McClain’s plan is going to do NOTHING for the AVERAGE hardworking wage earner. He will lose his benefits and end up in a government plan he pays for out of his own pocket. The government bureaucratic bung heap will increase anyhow.
But this is the part of your diatribe I love best…
Cowards and liberal dunderheads. How dare you write that about fellow Americans. These are hard working people who do their best to eek out a living, with a few extra dollars in their pocket to “go shopping” and support our economy.
Goodness forbid it’s “fair”. Health care for all Americans on THIS blog is a petty luxury.
You Sir, are no American. You Sir, are the coward and the dunderhead.
May God forgive you.
12. Aaron | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Tiredoflib -
“Now the masses can determine who their health provider will be rather than the corporation! Insurance companies will have to cater to the people rather than the corporation.”
As westmich points out, corporations can get group rates, which individuals are not able to leverage. As such, health insurance costs as an individual will be much higher.
But there are several other important points you’re missing in your wide-eyed enthusiasm for McCain’s healthcare scheme. One is that insurance companies can exclude individuals who they don’t want to cover, which they can’t do when it’s a group rate under a large business. Remember: insurers only want to cover healthy people - that’s how they rake in their billions. Under the pro-corporate Rightwing healthcare scheme, big insurers get to pick individuals they want to cover, while pricing out those they don’t want (ie, people who actually need care), thus insuring even more humongous profits.
The other thing to consider is that insurers often try to find technicalities that will allow them to skip out on paying for a costly procedure. With big group accounts, they have less room to screw people over because they risk losing that big account. But a lone individual standing up against the insurance company’s phalanx of lawyers has very little leverage to convince the insurer to cover necessary care.
So the McCain plan is a boon both to big business in general and to insurance corporations in particular - and it is one more body blow to middle class families. It will be sold under the usual misleading banners of “choice”, “freedom to manage your own healthcare”, “tax break for middle class families”, etc. Some idiots will fall for that, but I think most people are seeing this crap for what it really is: more corporate welfare.
13. Christian Wright | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The health of Americans is a national security issue; therefore, healthcare needs to be provided by the government.
We need to eliminate for-profit healthcare and adopt a system used in Canada or Europe.
14. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
westmich,
Part of McCain’s plan, though, is to allow any grouping of people to buy health care…in other words, you and a dozen other small businesses in your area would be able to purchase a bulk rate insurance plan which your employees could buy into, if they choose to and which would cover the business owners and their families.
The whole thrust of health care has to be to return power over it to the people who use it - the Democrats plan is a top-down plan which rewards bureaucracy and takes the healt care consumer out of the loop…the McCain plan takes the bureaucracy out of the loop.
15. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Bedspread,
So, you’re whole view hinges on your theory that the economy is in the dumpster?
16. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
SAR,
If the gas station is charging 3.50 a gallon and the one across the street is charging 3.25, which are you going to go to?
That is the plan - to force insurance companies to compete for health care consumer dollars…to tailor make plans for the individuals and families, rather than trying to shove as many people as possible in to one-size-fits-all corporate (or government) programs.
A 20 year old doesn’t need all that much health care coverage - so, sign him up for the $1,000 deductible plan which really only covers catastrophes.
A 25 year old who married a year ago and now has a newborn need a lot of coverage - so, sign him up for the $250 deductible plan which covers all the whistles and bells.
A 45 year old who just sent the last kid off to college needs a plan which covers routine check ups because as we age, we need routine tests in order to detect health problems early on - so, sign him up for the $500 deductible plan with a pretty hefty office co-pay, but dirt cheap testing.
A 65 year old still needs those routine tests, but also is far more concerned with long-term care. So, sign him up for the $750 dedcutible plan with the moderate office visit co-pay, moderate test co-pay but extensive long-term and in-home coverage.
Get the picture?
17. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Aaron,
Indeed - but you’re looking at it the wrong way; the burden is shifted from corporation to worker, but so is the power.
Don’t you want to be free and taking care of your own business?
18. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
extra,
Nice try at a topic-changer…but we’re not here to debate the miserably bad Canadian and European health plans, but the various reform proposals for the American health plan.
19. Bedspread | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
More of your idiocy.
So, based on your description, I ‘d pay taxes on the additional 9K in income. But now I’m on my own to cover my own medical.
The 9K that was used in cover my medical is now GONE. My taxes GO UP because my company found it necessary to compensate me for it in real “on the check” wages. (RIGHT, I’m sure they will) but, I’ll get a “rebate” to cover the additional taxes that were increased. Net gain for me? NOTHING. Oh wait..now I can find my own medical.
Spare me the B.S.
Yet, now…I have to find and pay for some medical plan out of pocket (around 12K right?) That’s a cool grand out of pocket a month. Let’s see we’re talking the LABOR market here, not some white collar upper management minion. (who will probably have their wages compensated, NOT JOE LABOR). Do you have any idea how many MORE families will elect NOT to pay (or can’t) for medical? The numbers of American families going without medical would skyrocket.
Thats OK with you isn’t it?
A cool grand out of pocket a month on top of 4 dollar a gallon gas, on top of rising food/sundry costs, on top of rising state taxes, on top of rising educational costs.
Our economy will really like this Republican change won’t it?
MSM lies and distortions? I can only hope the MSM trumpets the road to ruin the Republican ticket mandates.
Fools.
(You know Mark, I keep forgetting, the economy is robust! We’re winning! It’s spring time and all is well in America under the Bush administration!)
Please, you embarrass yourself. Do yourself a favor. Put America before the RNC.
20. Aaron | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Almiranta -
“This knee-jerk anti-corporation rhetoric is soooo old-school socialism, based on a combination of ignorance about what corporations really are, emotion-based distrust of them, and antipathy to the free market system.”
So, Almiranta, tell us “what corporations really are”. What is their goal?
Look, corporations are here to do one thing: make as much money for themselves as possible. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. None. So why don’t we just own up to that?
What is wrong is that naive or brainwashed individuals like yourself think that corporations are here for our benefit. In the same way that some liberals came to be dependent on government as “Mommy” - some imagined great benefactor which solely had their best interests always at heart - most conservatives today have an abiding blind trust that corporations only do good. You poor brainwashed sots have come to believe that whatever is good for corporate profits is automatically good for everyone, and that corporations are here to take care of you.
No, corporations are here only to make money (which in itself is fine). Why pretend otherwise? The profit incentive is what makes capitalism go, which is a good thing. But a corporation only “cares” about your healthcare insofar as that might coincidentally contribute to its bottom-line (which in turn is really all about bigger bonuses for the super-elites who run the corporation). To think otherwise is naive in the extreme.
So if a corporation’s true purpose in life is to maximize profit, how does it do that in the realm of health insurance? The answer is simple: deny service whenever possible. In most business endeavors, this would be a bad strategy - your competitors would get more customers if you denied a contractual pay-out or in some other way gave bad service. But healthcare is a different kind of business that doesn’t follow the usual models.
The name of the game in maximizing profits if you’re an insurer is to identify bad bets and avoid having them as your customer. If you’ve agreed to cover someone, and it turns out they need a lot of medical care, your job as an insurer bent on maximizing profit is to find a way not to pay, especially if the procedures involved are very expensive. Then your job will be to try to get that sick person off of your customer list as soon as possible (aka, minimizing costs). Once that person is off your cost inventory, the illusion peddled by the free marketeers is that this customer would then be free to “choose” another insurance business - preferably one that has better service. But it is likely that now you will be identified to all potential insurers as having a “pre-existing condition” - meaning none will want to insure you, which they’ll make clear by pricing you out. Oh sure, there will still some semblance of free market competition: you’ll be able to choose between Insurer A who will kindly offer to insure you and your pre-existing condition for $6,000/month, or Insurer B who will do it for $7,000/month.
So, “choosing” health insurance is not like choosing a camera between several competing companies. Ney - in the health insurance world, the proven successful business model is predicated upon denial of service - aka avoiding payouts. You as an individual have little choice - especially if you’re an individual fighting on your own outside of a group plan. As such, under the McCain plan, you’ll be an even easier target for exclusion.
There is nothing inherently “evil” about insurers maximizing profit in this way. But lets not pretend that insurers won’t stand by and watch you die if the logic of profit so dictates. The decision we have to make as citizens is not whether big insurance corporations pursuing profits is evil or not - rather, we must decide whether this is the best system for delivering healthcare. What kind of nation do we want to live in?
21. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The difficulty with McCain’s plan is that it doesn’t provide a backup should a private health insurance company refuse to insure an individual, and that’s the crux of the issue.
The Democrat plan presents a “plan B” in the form of expanded medicare to those who can’t get private health insurance.
You can argue about whether it’s the place of the employer or the employee to insure someone, but the thing is, the employer is the bigger entity, and an individual is much more likely to receive some form of health insurance if they are with an employer than if they are shopping for it on their own. It’s also an incentive to work.
Let me contrast with an example. Say someone is a driver with a habit of having accidents. A private insurance company isn’t going to want to offer them insurance. But if they get a job with a courier firm, they get insured to drive work vehicles by the corporate policy and this is exactly the same for health care. Say that someone has a continuing illness - diabetes for example - that needs constant treatment. A private insurance company (has anyone read Sick of Blue Cross recently?) is going to consider these people a bad risk because they are going to have to pay a lot, so they won’t offer that individual private health insurance. But Diabetes doesn’t stop an individual working, and if there’s a corporate health insurance plan then they will have insurance through it.
McCain doesn’t provide a “plan B” and puts the emphasis on the individual, not the corporation. If the individual can’t get insurance because the insurance company won’t offer it, that’s just tough in McCain’s book.
The Democrat plan at least makes allowance for the fact that an insurance company is out to make a profit which means they will try NOT to insure “bad risks”. By expanding medicare they offer those who can’t get insurance an alternative, and that is going to be popular.
With the average joe public who does not describe themselves as a Republican or a Democrat, offer them both plans and they’ll choose the Democrat one in a world where job security is an issue and other costs are rising.
22. extramedium | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mark - nice topic changer? My question to you was precisely ON topic. Your single argument against the democratic healthcare plan was that:
I’ll counter that by any measure - health spending per capita, infant mortality rates, avg lifespan, quality of care, universal access - the UK healthcare system is far superior to that of the US. The US should be so lucky as to have such a system in place. Therefore, since you contend the the Democrats will lead us to a UK type system, that would be the better path to take.
Tell me how that’s off topic. Then tell me what’s wrong with the UK/Canada healthcare system. Or perhaps you have another argument against the Democratic plan that you ARE prepared to back up.
23. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
extra,
The topic isn’t Canada’s health care - it is the contrast between McCain’s plan and the Democrat’s plan. My comment about Canada’s health plan was incidental, not central, to the topic.
24. Bedspread | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I really have to laugh Mark,
The McCain premise is that the corporate world is going to compensate me in real wages for discontinuing medical contributions.
The will only be a boon to corporate profits.
I can GUARANTEE they will not compensate in real wages.
Not in the real world.
The REAL WORLD Mark…
25. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
AF,
Where there is money to be made, it will be made - and people who are high risk have money, especially under McCain’s plan.
But, I do see your point - of course, its also not as black and white as you make out…some people can say “no one will insure me” when they really mean “no one will insure me for what I’m willing to pay”…but for people who are genuinely the different catagory of “no one will insure me for what I’m able to pay”, some provision should be made.
26. Mark Noonan | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
bedspread,
Well, that would be the view if you really think that the generally liberal graduates of liberal universities who run most corporations are actually a bunch of EEEEEVIL, capitalist Robber Barons.
Those of us in the real world know that if, say, Citi is offering $20 an hour with no health insurance and BofA is offering $25 an hour, we’re going to go work for B0fA…
27. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Mark:
So you intimate that only the greedy will not end up with health insurance, because they’re not WILLING to pay it?
I’m sorry, that just isn’t true. At all. As many of the people in the “Sick of Blue Cross” site write, they thought that they had health insurance. Granted a lot of them complain about the spiraling costs which, incidentally, is a method insurance companies DO use to ‘price people out’ of being able to afford insurance - but the bottom line is, most of these insurance policies contain get-out clauses for the insurer.
And where there isn’t a state funded insurance scheme to pick those people up, they simply lose the American dream. They end up having to sell their houses to pay the medical bills they thought they were insured against, and end up not only uninsured but homeless at the end of the day (in some cases).
Again, this isn’t accurate. In the example you cite, the quality of the health insurance offered by Citi would be a factor in my decision for who to work for. There is no point in earning an extra $5 an hour if that money is going to be swallowed by health insurance, and by suggesting that “those of us in the real world” will automatically pick YOUR choice, you are being very discourteous to anyone who might actually way up the overall financial situation. You are also showing your own unchrisitan greed if you would automatically make this choice in taking the bigger salary rather than looking out for benefits for yourself, and possibly your family too.
28. Bedspread | March 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Mark,
Not everybody wears a suit and tie. A lot of LABOR workers turn valves, push mechanical buttons, stamp out products in mills, etc, etc. You must know SOMEONE who gets dirty and sweats out a days labor. Anyone?
Believe me, there are way more people LOOKING for the shitty B of A jobs, than there ARE shitty B of A jobs. The majority of us will end up working for Citi, because it’s a JOB and we’re hungry.
Yes Mark, the REAL world.
29. extramedium | March 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Incidental? The ONLY argument you made about the Democratic healthcare plan is that it would lead to a UK/Canada style system. How is that incidental if it’s your whole argument?
I understand that you would be afraid to debate this on the facts, since you probably know that the US system will pale in comparison, but honestly - what motivates you? Why would you not want everyone to get healthcare, especially since systems that provide universal healthcare have been proven to work brilliantly outside the US? Are you fixated on the “equality” aspect of it - that the low earners would enjoy the same level of care as the high earners? I just don’t get where you are coming from.
I think you are just plain wrong here. The benefits of universal healthcare come from removing the profit motive and maximizing the size of the risk pool. Those benefits outweigh the overhead of government bureaucracy, even assuming the inevitable inefficiency of government.
You need to start looking at healthcare services like you do police services and firefighting services. It’s critical to the safety and well being of the people. And it’s definitely an area where corporations and Wall Street don’t belong.
By the way - you seem to have a soft spot for the poor slobs who took risky mortgages from financial corporations, but have no such compassion for the poor slobs shut out by insurance companies. What gives?
30. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I wouldn’t say the UK system is brilliant, having worked for the NHS for 12 years prior to emigrating, but it DOES work, and it DOES provide for people.
The system McCain proposes works fine FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES but it doesn’t work for the individual person who needs medical insurance. Not without a plan B.
31. westmich | March 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
HR 676
Basically, House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill now in sub-committee in the House of Representatives simply creates a new and far more functional “single payer” method of paying for medical services while leaving the medical system itself completely alone and intact. This will eliminate the hundreds of complicated and redundant payment plans currently imposed on the system by private “for profit” health insurance companies and save literally BILLIONS of dollars every year by eliminating such wasteful duplication. This will allow your doctors offices and hospitals to function much more efficiently and serve your needs much more effectively as well. Just imagine what a huge benefit this will be!
Taxes: We all know that nothing of any real value is ever free, but if you think of the taxes that will be required to support national health insurance as simply a lower cost alternative to the staggering private health insurance premiums that most of us already have to pay but which will be totally eliminated under the new system, then it becomes immediately clear that this could be a really good deal after all!
Check out some of the tremendous benefits that NHI will bring and see what you think:
* Every citizen of the US will be covered from birth to death.
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays.
* All prescription medications will be covered.
* All dental and eye care will be included.
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.
* Long term and nursing home services will be included.
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis.
* Tremendously simplified system of medical administration
* Total portability – your coverage not tied to any job or location.
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will remain the same or be vastly improved in many cases.
The real irony is that this new system will be a lot less expensive and provide much better services than the largely dysfunctional system currently in place and still leave us with the best health care system in the entire world, only with the New Medicare… it will be even better!
Don’t be put off by all of the misleading and often inaccurate rhetoric that you so often hear about changing our system. For example uninformed critics will ask “Do you really want your medical decisions made by some government bureaucrat in Washington?” Well, the truth is that with NHI, just about every medical decision will be made privately by you and your doctor. But ironically, under the current system, many medical decisions about what’s best for you are now being made by some corporate bureaucrat working for a private insurance company whose main concern is making larger profits by denying your claims. How exactly does that work out to be better for you??
Change is indeed often a very scary thing to most people, but when the need is so great and the proposed changes are so much better than the status quo, maybe changing to a NHI system in the USA is something that we can all think about supporting, whether you are a moderate, liberal or conservative, after giving it a lot of careful study and thought. Please call your congressperson and let them know what you think. They really need to hear from you.
32. westmich | March 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
#31 is from http://www.hr676.org/ - I meant to quote it.
33. js | March 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
That should make it more like a non profit insurance company separate from the government kinda like the post office.
Under a system like HR676, the health insurance industry would lose 3 trillion dollars in consumer spending every year, of which they keep about 1 trillion for thier “overhead”.
Did you ever wonder how Insurance builds so many sky scrapers?
34. Some Assembly Required | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“After his additional $3,000 in taxes, he would realize a net gain of $6,000.” -ALM
Yes, this is true. Then add the additional $2500 - $5000 rebate depending on family and such. Using the $5000 that equates to $11,000 which still means that the family in this case would have to cough up another $1000 to cover the $12000 per year estimated. The rebate to is not shown in cash but taken out of taxes at end year. So, per year the family would have to cover that additional $5000 as well out of pocket. This is assuming now that insurance prices do not rise.
Now looking at the current system as listed. The company pays $9000 out of $12000, leaving the family to pay $3000. (McCain’s plan is $6000 out of pocket) If prices rise the company still maintains the same percentage to the increase. But, If it’s on the individual all of a sudden that tax rebate and extra $6000 gain means nothing.
One more thing it is important to note, The Employers would be under no pressure to pay their employees what they contribute into their health insurance.
The biggest arguement you’ve put forth against the dems plan is that it is not personalized. I ask you this, does it really matter if the plan covers more than what you need. This is a plan which you can keep for years. So what if a 25 year old is covered now for something they may need to be covered for in 25 years. They will not have to switch plans and go through rigorous medical tests to determine if they can infact be covered.
Under the dem plan, the government would also provide affordable health insurance which would guarantee coverage. This would effectively create more competition among insurance companies. You know, it’s like one gas station selling regular at $3.50 a gallon, but the one across the street selling supreme at $3.00 a gallon. Understand?
35. Aaron | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Mark -
“Indeed - but you’re looking at it the wrong way; the burden is shifted from corporation to worker, but so is the power.
Don’t you want to be free and taking care of your own business?”
Thank you Mark for demonstrating to all exactly the kind of naivete I was talking about.
Yes, you’ve been sold this purposely misleading, but emotionally satisfying pablum about “empowerment of the individual”. Sure, it all sounds great - I get the power! I’m in control! Who wouldn’t want that?
What a sucker.
When the company you work for decides to stop offering a group plan, you’ll now be “free” as an individual to try to buy health insurance with your new tax credit McCain gave you for that purpose. Wow, you must feel so “empowered”! But as a lone individual trying to purchase a plan on your own, insurance companies will now be able to exclude you at will based on your health record. And if you do manage to get coverage and then require an expensive procedure, you as a lone individual without the backing of a large group account will have little recourse against their lawyers when the insurer decides to deny payment. Lets see how “empowered” you feel then.
Far from being empowered, you’ll be much easier prey, which is the real goal. In reality, this Rightwing notion of health care reform is about further disempowering people, releasing corporations from the burden of offering health insurance as a competitive employee benefit, further offering up the US Treasury as a source of corporate welfare, and further enriching the insurance corporations that fund campaigns.
Wake up and grow up.
36. Some Assembly Required | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
When you limit government to simply elected officials one morning you will wake up not to the United States of America, but to the American Corporation of United States run by a board of directors who answer to majority stock holders. As Evidenced by the East India Trading Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
37. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
One one side there is the tired and failed government run socialized medicine programs that have become too expensive for Canada and Europe to afford.
On the otherside there is the “let everyone fend for themselves plan”, which seems to place the worker/consumer at the mercy of the insurance company.
I don’t know enough about McCain’s plan, but I do know that one of the big problems in dealing with insurance companies is getting them to pay the claim. Right now most companies provide an advocate that fights to get the claim paid. Most individuals would have now clue, and no time to do this. In addition from what I am reading above, the McCain plan does nothing to stop the rising cost of healthcare, it just shifts the burden.
Along with any plan there must be tort reform. This alone would bring down the cost of healthcare. As proof, some surgeons are offering steep discounts to patients who wave their right to sue.
Finally, where is it written that their must be an insurance company as a middleman between the healthcare consumer and the healthcare provider? Kaiser Permanente offers medical plans covering patients and they also provide the care. This substantially reduces the cost of care. In addition, Kaiser is very diligent about negotiating the best rates for medical supplies and pharmacueticals.
The McCain Plan, along with tort reform and more healthcare plans like Kaiser could be a good compromise to rein in the escalating costs of heathcare, while provide good care at reasonable costs for all.
38. Bedspread | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
As usual Noonan, You’re nothing but a mouth piece for the RNC.
Christian? Please. Spare us.
Why don’t you adopt a few Catholic orphans? You could then pay the family plan rates that you espouse here.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
39. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
But McCain doesn’t plan any kind of Tort reform, does he? Nor does he plan to even encourage, let alone force other companies to come up with good plans such as the Kaiser one you talk about.
There are two national industries that will always be a drain on the economy of ANY country. The first is the military, since the cost of any bomb dropped or bullet fired is lost. The second is healthcare, since the cost of any injection given or tablet taken is lost.
If you have a situation that relies on industry doing the “right thing” you’re going to wait forever. They do the sound business thing, not the ethically correct thing.
I do agree that tort reform and better healthcare plans might help McCain’s plan to stand a chance of working, but he has no intention of trying any sort of reform. No plan B. That’s why his plan won’t, and can’t, work.
40. congressive | March 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
McCain, raiser of middle class taxes. But hey, he’ll give us a tax rebate that won’t go up year after year, while our medical insurance skyrockets year after year.
God, that’s funny!
Democrats - bringing CheneyCare to the people. Why not? If it’s good enough for Dick, it’s good enough for me.
Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA… GZZZZ… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! MEDIC! MY SIDES HAVE SPLIT COMPETELY OPEN!!!!
41. Michael | March 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Here are some facts:
I retired from the federal government (FAA) and took my cushy Blue Cross health insurance with me into retirement.
About a year ago I had trouble breathing so I went to emergency room at local hospital. They declared I had COPD and put me on a ventilator so I could breathe. After some weeks in the hospital, they transfered me to a managed care facility over 100 miles away since it was thie only one that handled ventilator cases anywhere around. I am still in that facility today. We recently were informed that Blue Cross is refusing to pay for this care even though they approved the transfer. I now have a 36,000 dollar bill to pay and since Blue Cross won’t pay, I had to apply for medicare. They will start paying my managed care facility, but they took my retirement check, lefaving me and my wife to live only her paycheck which is half what mine was. Now we can no longer meet our financial obligations and are filing for bankruptcy. So don’t think that employer-provided (even when the employer is Unce Sam). We are appealing the Blue Cross denial, but they’ve already denied one appeal already. Now the medical facility is trying to appeal it too. If all this fails, it is bankruptcy for us. We will lose our home (if we can’t sell it first), our car, and any other thing of value they can dig up. Our credit will be ruined. All this because I depended on being “covered.”
42. Aaron | March 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
phnx -
“One one side there is the tired and failed government run socialized medicine programs that have become too expensive for Canada and Europe to afford.”
Really? Too expensive? Per capita, Europe and Canada spend less than half the US on health care (and are healthier than we are). We spend nearly $6,000 per person per year on health care, whereas Europeans spend around $2500-$3000 depending on the country.
European countries also spend less on health care when measured as a percentage of their GDP. (France, for example, spends 10.4% of it’s GDP on health care, while the US spends 16.5% of its GDP on health care)
And even more paradoxically, European countries spend less of their federal government budgets on health care than we do. In the US, we spend 22% of the federal budget on health care, while in France only 14% of the budget goes to health care.
To sum, Europeans spend less per capita, less as a % of GDP, and less as a % of their federal budgets on health care than we do. So who’s health care system is too expensive?
43. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Michael,
As someone who works within the health industry, I am sorry for your situation. And, although I should be surprised the way Blue Cross treated you, it’s a sad state of affairs that I’m not surprised, not in the least.
But this is what I’m saying. McCain would prefer to cut back on medicare in favor of tax breaks for individuals to get their own health insurance. As Michael’s story illustrates, and he’s by far a rare case, that entire system breaks completely if the health insurance company either doesn’t offer cover at all, or reneges on its agreement.
There has to be a “plan B” for when that happens, and Medicare may be far from perfect but at least it works, when properly funded. McCain has no plan B, and indeed doesn’t care about people like Michael who fall through the gaps. If McCain had his way, Medicare wouldn’t be there to help Michael.
Do the “Christians” who post here agree with this? I sure don’t.
44. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Aaron, Interesting comments.
1. Malpractise lawsuits in Europe are virtually unknown, this cuts a major part of the cost out of healthcare.
2. Another reduction is the built in waiting period for care that results in patient atrition. That’s not going to go over well with our population.
3. Healthcare is so wonderful in Canada that some Canadian lawmakers come to the US for care.
Unless you are willing to contribute some useful recommendations take your pointless “mine is bigger than yours” argument somewhere else.
45. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“Medicare may be far from perfect but at least it works, when properly funded.” AF
The unfunded liability for Medicare is worse than social security. Where is the money going to come from to “properly fund” medicare as you put it. Its only going to get worse as the baby boom population ages. In addition expanding medicare does nothing to reign in the expanding cost of healthcare.
Frankly the prospect of a healthcare system run by the government doesn’t give me much confidence. Imagine your healthcare depeding on the efficiency of the post office and the cost control of the pentagon.
46. hgstern | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Interesting plan and, liberal shibboleths notwithstanding, only a few potential drawbacks.
The most serious one would be the issue of pre-existing conditions: currently, one can move from group-to-grout (and individual-to-group) with no exclusion for these. The same is NOT true when moving from group-to-individual or individual-to-individual. Under McCain’s plan (as stated in the post), the latter problem thus becomes the former’s, as well. That will need to be addressed.
47. hgstern | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
err…”group-to-grout” = “group-to-group.”
PIMF
48. congressive | March 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Aaron, how dare you interject facts into this debate? ;-)
You have to stick with words like “some” Canadian lawmakers, and a “major part” of the costs, otherwise if you insert facts, the debate is over, and we look like overpaying idiots.
Can’t have that, now can we?
Face up to it. McCain’s plan will raise middle class taxes solely to put more money in billionaire’s pockets. Oh, sure, he’ll rebate a portion of it that, year after year, falls behind escalating medical insurance premiums.
He’s playing you for chumps. And winning.
49. Arctic Fox | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
So what’s your solution? As I said, any form of state funded medical care is money lost. It will always be money lost. But the alternative to NOT providing it is measurable in human lives rather than money.
Which is more important?
50. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
You socialsits want some facts?
“To put the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system in perspective, it is equivalent to an eight-percent tax on consumption, a 13-percent tax on wages, the combined annual output of all six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), or the total annual sales of the U.S. restaurant industry.” (KRC: Pacific Research Institute, “JACKPOT JUSTICE…” p. 28)
“The annual price tag, or “tort tax,” for a family of four in terms of costs and forgone benefits is $9,827. “(KRC: Pacific Research Institute, “JACKPOT JUSTICE…” p. 28) Note: Includes both direct AND indirect costs.
“Only 22 cents of every tort-cost dollar go to injured parties to compensate them for actual economic losses. Twenty–four cents go to noneconomic payments, including punitive damages. The U.S. tort system returns less than 50 cents of every tort-cost dollar to injured claimants, those it was designed to help.” (KRC: Pacific Research Institute, “JACKPOT JUSTICE…” p. 15)
Tort costs grew by 5.4% in 2003 reaching a record $246 billion; that’s $845 per person, or $35 per person more than 2002. (KRC: Tillinghast, “… 2004 Update”, p. 2)
“Even under conservative estimates, the American tort system is the most expensive in the world, and presents costs greater than twice that of the average cost of liability systems in other industrialized nations.” (KRC: Council of Economic Advisors, “Who Pays For….”, p. 1-2)
“While it is impossible to accurately predict future increases in tort costs, it does seem reasonable to assume that without sweeping structural changes to the U.S. tort system, annual increases will be in the 5% to 8% range for the next several years. At this rate of increase, tort costs could approach $1,000 per U.S. citizen by 2006 – representing a new quadruple-digit benchmark.” (KRC: Tillinghast, “… 2004 Update”, p. 2)
To gain an historical perspective consider: “A 1988 survey by the Conference Board of more than 2,000 chief executive officers found that 47 percent of manufacturers have withdrawn products because of fear of litigation, 89 and 25 percent have discontinued some product research for that reason”. (KRC: Hantler, “Seven Myths…”, p. )
“If companies aren’t making profits, or if they have to spend a lot of money on legal expenses, they have less to give back to the community. So do their shareholders. So do their workers. When companies are doing well, the community does well.” (KRC: Marcus, “Solutions for the Litigation….” citing Jack Welch)
Direct Costs of Lawsuit Abuse
In 2003, the direct costs of the U.S. tort system – losses, defense costs, administrative expenses – added up to $246 billion or 2.23% of GDP. (KRC: Tillinghast, “… 2004 Update”, p. 2, 5)
[S]mall business alone pays $88 billion a year to cover the cost of America’s tort system – money that could be used to hire additional workers, expand productivity and improve employee benefits. (www.legalrefornnow.com, citing a study commissioned for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, 2004)
“The overall cost of this “tort tax” on our economy over the next 10 years will be more than $3.6 trillion, assuming tort costs increase at their 30 year trend. If tort costs increase at their 2001 pace, the ten-year cost of the tort tax will be over $4.8 trillion – almost triple the size of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts combined. “ (KRC: Manhattan Institute, Trial Lawyers, Inc., p. 5)
“Incredibly, what Americans spend on lawsuits could pay for all the following Government programs combined: “Education, training, and employment; general science, space and technology; conservation and land management; pollution control and abatement; disaster relief and insurance; community development; Federal law enforcement and administration of justice; and unemployment compensation.” (KRC: Hantler, “Seven Myths…” p. 6, quoting Council of Economic Advisers, Who Pays For Tort Liability Claims? An Economic Analysis of The U.S. Tort Liability System April, 2002, note 31, p. 17.)
“If left unchecked, tort costs will ultimately damage the competitive standing of the U.S. economy, much as states with lax systems of civil justice are losing business to states that have passed lawsuit reform.” (KRC: Hantler, “Seven Myths…” p.7)
“To sum up, runaway tort costs – costing every American some $809 a year [2002] – harm the business climate of states, enforce a kind of “tort protectionism” that isolates parts of the U.S. economy from world trade, reduce access and affordability in health care, and kill goods that promote safety and human health”. (KRC: Hantler, “Seven Myths…” p. )
I thought that my previous posts made it clear that I am not in favor of a “let everyone fend for themselves” medical plan. But socialized medicine as done in Europe will not work in the US without turning over a major segement of the economy over to an inefficient government which is a plan for disaster.
51. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.
He said speed was not the reason why she went to California.
Instead, MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required.
52. phnx | March 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth. In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, “There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit.”
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.
A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, “More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care.”
So much for socialized medicine.
OBTW: Did I mention that its ILLEGAL to get private healthcare in Canada? That was Hillary’s idea also.
53. Aaron | March 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
phnx -
“1. Malpractise lawsuits in Europe are virtually unknown, this cuts a major part of the cost out of healthcare.
I see you’ve swallowed this often proffered diversionary myth that our health system is so much more expensive all because of malpractice lawsuits.
First of all, medical malpractice claims and payouts have declined over the last few years, while overall medical costs and health insurance premiums have continued to skyrocket. So obviously, there is not much of a correlation there.
And while malpractice claims and awards have been on the decline for several years, especially as many states have imposed caps, medical malpractice insurance has continued to balloon. So once again, our friends in the big insurance industry are out there shaking down doctors - just the way they do patients.
Secondly, malpractice payouts account for only about 1% of medical costs. According to a study at Dartmouth Medical School, malpractice payouts accounted for about $11 of every $1,000 of health care costs in 2004.
Insurers are merely diverting attention with self-serving myths that costs would be much lower than in Europe if only we had tough tort reform. The real reasons our health care is so much more expensive than the frequently better quality health care in Europe are of course slightly more complex than the easy target of frivolous lawsuits.
There are two main cost drivers here in the US that dwarf malpractice lawsuits. One is that administrative costs of our private-insurance-based multi-payer system are many times greater than under the single-payer systems deployed in most European countries. This is largely due to the inefficiency of multiple layers of redundant bureaucracies inherent in the insane way we do medicine: each insurance carrier has it’s own administrative system, it’s own peculiar reimbursement rules, it’s own pricing structure, with it’s own required paperwork. In the hospital where I work, the billing department has an entire building all to its own, such are the number of personnel required to chase down reimbursement from the hundreds of different insurance systems. And billing specialists are present in even the tiniest doctor offices these days.
On average, the US spends 6 times more per capita on health care administrative costs than our peer nations in western Europe. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study in 2003, administrative costs accounted for a whopping 31% of what we spend on health care in the US! (and you’re screaming about the 1% of malpractice costs). By comparison, in Canada only 17% of health spending is for administrative overhead. In France it is about 11%, and in the UK, about 2.5%.
The other major cost driver for US health care is that we don’t cover everyone here. How does having millions of uninsured end up costing you much more for health care? Well, the uninsured tend not to seek care until a medical condition has gotten very serious. Then they go to the ER. This is an extremely expensive way to deliver medicine. The uninsured can’t pay, but must be treated, which drives up costs for everyone.
“2. Another reduction is the built in waiting period for care that results in patient atrition. That’s not going to go over well with our population.”
Uh, no - yet another insurance industry myth. Waiting periods in most EU countries are comparable to the US.
And most uninsured in the US cannot get treatment for chronic conditions - they can only be seen for life-saving procedures in the ER. They will never get an MRI, for example - ever. I’d say “forever” is a long long time to wait.
54. congressive | March 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
Let’s put some real numbers to the hype that Canadians are streaming south for that good ole American style healthcare:
136 ambulatory healthcare facilities in Detroit, Buffalo, and Seattle responded to the
survey. In a two year span, 52 of these facilities reported seeing no Canadians, 56 reported seeing fewer than 10, 21 reported seeing 21-25, and 7 reported seeing more than 25.
From 1994 to 1998, 2,031 Canadians were admitted to hospitals in Michigan, 1,689 to
hospitals in New York, and 825 to hospitals in Washington. During this period, these
hospitalizations represented only 0.23% of all the hospitalizations that occurred in the three provinces bordering these states.
Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the Canadian National Population Health Survey indicated they had received health care in America in the past year, and only 20 of these had gone to the U.S. specifically for that purpose.
Let’s see, 20 out of 18,000 Canadians are unhappy with their socialized medicine. That means over .1% of the Canadian population has HAD IT with their horrible system. The other 99.89% thinks it’s ok.
The horror. The horror.
55. extramedium | March 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 am
The bottom line is - universal health care should not be a partisan issue. Sure, there are some good points like how we should deal with malpractice lawsuits or whether private care should be available for those who wish to pay for it - but ultimately, Democrats and Republicans should be arguing over who can put forth the BEST universal health care plan, not WHETHER we should do it.
The results are in for the great laissez-faire corporate health care experiment in the US and they’re not good. Health insurance companies have demonstrated time and time again that they intend to generate maximum profits by cherry-picking applicants, denying coverage and rejecting claims. And don’t get me wrong - I’m a capitalist and 99% of the time I’d say let the market sort things out, but this is clearly not one of them. To let this go on, and frankly get WORSE under McCain’s plan, would be like privatizing fire departments and letting them decide which fires would be cost effective to fight.
You conservatives need to put aside your knee-jerk reaction to piss on anything liberals want. As one of you loves to say, you’re being “useful idiots” - specifically, useful idiots to the American health insurance industry.
56. Almiranta | March 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
What I see from the Libs here is the typical oversimplification of everything—if it ain’t perfect, throw it out.
No reasonable person could possibly think that the summary of McCain’s proposal is a comprehensive explanation of a revision of health care in the United States. No, but the Libs act as if it is.
No reasonable person could think that the summary of McCain’s proposal is the final version, and carved in stone. No, but the Libs act as if it is.
If we can cut through the hysteria and the BS to some basic facts, we could actually have a discussion.
1. The first and most basic question is actually a two-parter: Do we want the federal government expanded to take over health care for Americans, and does the Constitution allow this? (No, CW, health care is NOT a matter of national security. Nice try, though.)
Conservatives answer no to both parts of that question. We don’t want to expand the federal government to include health care, and we don’t think the Constitution allows for it anyway.
2. Does anyone have a fully complete and comprehensive plan for revising the current private insurance/private provider model?
Not yet. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And that doesn’t mean that if the first, second, or twentieth drafts fail to solve every single problem, the effort should be scrapped. This is not Utopia. There will be problems.
3. If there are problems to be addressed, will it be easier to make those changes in a national health care system or in the private sector?
I think we all know the answer to that. Changing government protocols is nearly impossible, and agonizingly slow.
There are ways to improve the insurance issues, all of which can be resolved with competition.
My brother in Colorado was turned down by three private insurance companies, but Colorado has a mandatory insurance coverage plan which he now uses. The cost is comparable to private companies, maybe a little higher, and he is insured. I wonder how many other states offer such a backup program. And those who don’t, can if they want to. After all, according to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, this is the business of the states, not the Federal government.
I don’t imagine Colorado is in the insurance business—I’m guessing the state subsidizes a company to take high-risk cases. I haven’t looked into it. But I do know there is a safety net for those cases in this state. And this is a state or local issue, when and if it does require any government intervention at all. It simply does not fall into the category of specifically designated powers of the United States government.
If we would address specific problems, such as the one mentioned by Michael, instead of just leaping to the conclusion that the entire system is a failure, it would be a lot easier to reach some rational solutions. I had Blue Cross and hated it—I don’t think they ever covered anything. But that doesn’t mean I think private insurance companies should be eliminated in favor of a no-choice, mandatory, government-run, plan.
I know that if you are not insured and you want to pay for, example, a doctor’s visit, if you ask they will take at least 40% off the bill—that’s how much it costs providers to deal with insurance companies. Why not address THAT problem instead of just dumping the entire private insurance program?
The goal of conservatives is not to enrich those nasty “corporations” or any such nonsense. It is to reduce the size of the federal government, and to keep health care in the hands of the consumer and provider.
57. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I notice that you completely ignore the stats that I provided, along with their souces, while you supplied nothing but trial lawyer talking points.
Both of the following links refute your assertion that claims and payouts have decrease over time. I can provide more if you like.
http://lawweb.usc.edu/academics/assets/docs/black.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mmicss04.pdf
Aaron, you are en employee aren’t you? Your statement that medical claims and payouts have declined, (reference please), fails to take into account the cost of a lawsuit is not just in the payout, but in the clost of litigation, which in itself can be millions. Just ask any of the drug companies.
Anther reason why litigation is substantially less in the UK for example, than the US, is that the loser must pay for the costs of litigation. This is sufficient to eliminate the majority of frivolous lawsuits. Why does the trial lawyer lobby oppose this reform? Because they know that most insurance companies will settle claims under $25,000 no matter how absurd, rather than litgate which will cost many times that payout. Why do the democrat prostitutes in congress refuse to support such a reform which would benefit all litigants except the trial lawyers themselves? It would end their gravy train of contributions. Trial lawyers far exceed other contributors to Dem candidates:
Of $182 Million that they donated to Federal campaigns in the last election cycle, 92% went to dems.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part10.html
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
Finally have you tried to sue the government recently? Government healthcare systems are immune from lawsuits, so they can reduce their costs accordingly. Health Canada, and the health services of the UK, France and Germany don’t have to worry about this threat.
One of the reasons that Kaiser Permanente can provide low cost high quality healthcare, is that they require patients to sign a statement limiting their rights to sue, requiring binding arbitration in the event of an incident and limiting the amount of any awards. But go ahead and be a shill for the trial lawyers.
Ohh and wait times, you ignore the stats and references I supplied and simply say, they are the same. Horse hockey. Provide some data.
While lyou are at it look up the stats for patients who die while in the cue. Of course that’s not your problem.
“According to a New England Journal of Medicine study in 2003, administrative costs accounted for a whopping 31% of what we spend on health care in the US! ” Aaron. Good point…most of the administrative burden as well as the plethora of tests that patients undergo are designed to protect the healthcare providers from lawsuits. Another unintended consequence of litigation gone wild.
Ever try to find a OB/GYN willling to deliver a child? They are becoming more scarce than hen’s teeth because of litigation. Thanks to Trial lawyers, their malpractise liability extends to 18 years for every birth!!!! So many hsopitals have closed their maternity wards and mid-wives are beinging to re-appear.
Physicians and surgeons have left NJ and PA in droves due to aggressive malpractise lawyers. Both states are now having to pay docotrs insurance premiums to get them to stay.
And the insurance caps that you mentioned are universally under assault by the trial lawyers as being unconstitutional. Think they have your best interest at heart?
http://wap.nbc5i.com/detail.jsp?key=248423&rc=ln_ne
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125738214.html
http://www.msv.org/files/public/MSVMalpracticeCapMailer.pdf
http://www.ihatoday.org/issues/liability/assocpress.pdf
Some physicians and surgeons are resorting to a new defensive tactic. They are going bare wth no malpractise insurance. They transfer all of their assets to their spouses, or holding corporations or offshore corporations where they are out of reach of the trial lawyers. Then they lease everything else, and own only the clothes on their backs. So in the vent of a suit, their is nothing to cover any claims. Once lawyers find that there is nothing lthere to get their hooks on, they refuse to waste their time litigating.
Other physicians and surgeons are requiring all patients to sign agreements not to sue. They refuse to treat those who do not agree to sign.
I can’t understand why you leftists are so enamoured of sleazeball lawyers like Edwards who make their millions off the backs of the misery of others…resulting in higher costs of all goods and services in our economy.
58. westmich | March 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I was hoping to encourage more dialog on my post about HR 676 and get some other opinions. From what I’ve read and looked into, it seems like the best plan put forth.
It does not reinvent the wheel, create any new government bureaucracy, eliminate any body’s freedom to chose, or create long waiting periods. It simply expands the proven system we’ve in place for going on 40 years. Medicare currently flips the bill for HALF OF ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES IN THIS COUNTRY. It does so more efficiently than private insurance companies - at about 1% overhead.
Weigh in things like giving Medicare the ability to negotiate prices, tort reform, and expanding the risk pool to include all Americans, you end up a more efficient system.
59. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“Medicare spending is increasing at twice the rate of the gross domestic product, and, according to Medicare’s chief actuary, the program is facing a breathtaking funding shortfall of $62 trillion—nearly six times larger than the much—discussed shortfall in Social Security. The newly enacted Medicare prescription drug benefit could cost more than $700 billion over the next 10 years and will only add to the program’s financial woes.” Cato institute
Medicare Trustees estimate the current unfunded liability to be $16.6 Trillion.
Medicare payment inefficiencies are costing $150 billion per year and its growing. So saying that its an efficient system is not exactly correct.
There is no economic disincentive or incentive for the consumer (ie the patient) to seek and negotiate the cost of care. Until that element is added to the equation expect to see costs continue to rise.
Whatever, the unfunded liability it is almost too large to comprehend. There is no way that business as usual is going to handle this.
60. Some Assembly Required | March 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
HR 676 Bill sounds spot on to me. It would not eliminate the private sector, just force the companies to convert to “not for profit” providers. The bill would even cover the expenses to re-vamp equipment and facilities for the providers. Any employee who may lose their job where administration is to be reduced will be compensated with 2 years of un-employment if another position can not be found for them. This bill seems to be a viable compromise between McCain’s healthcare and the dem’s.
Funding seems fairly reasonable as well. A tax increase is the only way to sort out current healtcare problems.
HR 676 is to be funded by:
“(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110az6dsP:e4810:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.676:
61. Aaron | March 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
extramedium -
“To let this go on, and frankly get WORSE under McCain’s plan, would be like privatizing fire departments and letting them decide which fires would be cost effective to fight.”
That is an excellent analogy! Hope you don’t mind if I swipe it - I write a lot about health care issues.
Like you, I agree that the free market (though regulated and with proper oversight) is the way to go for 99% of economic endeavors. I want profit-driven capitalist enterprises to compete to produce the best camera at the lowest cost.
But I don’t think the free market works very well for fighting fires, fighting crime, fighting terrorists… or fighting illness. The movement conservatives of today have one simple thought drilled into their skulls by moneyed interests who covet the public sphere: privatize everything. They think private is always better, in all situations, no matter what, end of story, no more discussion. It is a religious belief with them, hammered into their pea brains by interests who are eyeing the public treasury as if it were a trough to be plundered. US corporations don’t compete with each other today in producing the best product in the most efficient manner so much as they compete with each other to lobby for government hand-outs and favorable treatment. A big reason why US corporations are less and less competitive is that they increasingly have become dependent of corporate welfare projects. Tax cuts to buy private health insurance is just another form of that. And Hillary wants to mandate that every adult buy private health insurance. Jeez, wouldn’t you like to be in a business where the government says everyone has to be your customer - and if they can’t pay, the US treasury will.
US corporations are becoming soft and lazy under Republican welfare schemes (and yes, Hillary is just Republican-lite). US companies are finding they don’t have to compete on the global stage because it is far easier US tax payers to subsidize them. And when they really f**k things up, there will be our tax dollars to bail them out once again.
62. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“Any employee who may lose their job where administration is to be reduced will be compensated with 2 years of un-employment if another position can not be found for them.” SAR
This is absurd. Employees will be fighting each other to be the first to be fired.
As to the method of funding, HR 676 should be dubbed the Robin Hood Healthcare Bill. It robs from the rich to give to the poor. Socialism is alive and well in the democrat party. Its not surprising that this was introduced by John Conyers. (D-MI).
63. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“US corporations are becoming soft and lazy under Republican welfare schemes (and yes, Hillary is just Republican-lite). US companies are finding they don’t have to compete on the global stage because it is far easier US tax payers to subsidize them. And when they really f**k things up, there will be our tax dollars to bail them out once again.” Aaron
With this statement you prove yourself to be a complete f*cking moron. Are you a government employee?
64. extramedium | March 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“As to the method of funding, HR 676 should be dubbed the Robin Hood Healthcare Bill. It robs from the rich to give to the poor.”
How so? Because it is funded by taxes?
65. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Not just taxes, disproportionately high taxes on the top 5% of income earners, households earning $150,000 or more.
Its just another transfer of wealth program for the socialists in Congress.
Some men rob you with a gun, some with a fountain pen…Woody Guthrie. Kinda of ironic ehhh.
66. Almiranta | March 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Duh, extra—where do you think taxes come from? Taxes are funds confiscated and redistributed to others. Very Robin Hood-ish.
I notice that no one bothered to address the constitutionality issue of getting the federal government even deeper into health care. Mich cited a proposal which is clearly unconstitutional, and the Lefties just don’t care.
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Show us where in the Constitution the providing of health care to citizens is “delegated” to the United States or “prohibited” to the states.
Doesn’t it make sense to start with an idea which is not in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States, rather than continue to fight for something that will only create a long and bitter legal battle to determine if it is even legal?
I guess when it comes to socialism, the Constitution doesn’t count for much.
67. Some Assembly Required | March 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Alm, Healthcare is a Right, not a luxury. Everyone becomes ill at some point in time and everyone needs treatment. To deny someone treatment which could result in their death is not only Unconstitutional but it is also murder. Healthcare is also an issue of national security on many levels. A healthy population wouldn’t impact the economy nearly as much as it does now. This would free up resources for the military.
Say small pox came back and swept across the US. Would that be a national security matter? Would you still agree that healthcare should be privatized when one insurance company refuses the treatment unless you pay them a ridiculous sum of money? How much is a life worth?
Phnx, you are right, it is very Robin-hoodish. Not like McCain’s plan that takes from the middle class and does not specify for the upper 5%. Any reform in healthcare will have to result in a tax increase. This is simply a reality. The question is where best to place the burden? On the people who can’t afford it or on people who can if they simply live within their means. Trade the BMW for a Focus instead of healthcare for a meal. So it’s an annoyance to 5% of the country, I’m sure the other 95% could live with that.
As for employees fighting each other to be fired that is simply naive. Unemployment is not your full pay check. It’s a percentage, something to the tune of 77% (Don’t quote me on that). So yes they will be fighting to get fired if they want to take a pay cut for two years and go though the hassle of finding other employment possibly out of state.
68. phnx | March 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“Healthcare is a Right” SAR
I must have missed that in the Bill of Rights can you enlighten me. As Almiranta said, refer to the 10th Amendment.
Naive??? You are the naive one. Ever heard of the underground economy??? Pullin’ down 77% of income for two years and collectin’ under the table…and paying NO tax…and you want me to pay for their healthcare to boot??? You are simply loony.
“First, there’s the legitimate economy, in which craftsmen are licensed and employers and employees pay taxes. Then there’s the fast-growing underground economy, where millions of nannies, construction workers, landscapers and others are paid off the books, their incomes largely untaxed. The best guess as to the size of the output of this shadow economy is about $970 billion, or nearly 9% that of the real economy. It could soon pass $1 trillion.The IRS has estimated that its tax gap-the amount of taxes owed minus the amount collected-is around $311 billion in any given year. A new estimate due out this year could be as high as $400 billion, says former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander” WSJ 2005, (imagine what it is today.)
Why are you leftists so eager to steal from the rich instead of getting EVERYONE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE???? That is your mantra isn’t it??
BTW: Ask anyone making $150,000 if they think they are rich. You’ll find that they don’t. As the saying goes…its not what you make its what you KEEP.
69. westmich | March 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I was not aware of this - where did you get this info? Would that be the insurance company employees who could potentially lose their job as a result of HR 676?
I am not for a Robin Hood plan. My understanding is that the bulk of the funding would be from a payroll tax shared by employee/employer. An addition, there would be a 5% tax for the top 5%. The top 5% earners are generally entrepreneurs/small business owners - who are currently struggling with health care costs for the small group of employees they employ. Overall the cost would be the same or slightly less.
Haven’t we, as a nation, come to a point where we can include basic health care in the same light as police, fire, and an education?
70. extramedium | March 24th, 2008 at 3:43 am
I don’t know guys - it sounds like you are arguing more about a flat tax than about a health care system. Isn’t everything funded by taxes - streets, parks, police, military - a Robin Hood program by your definition?
And as far as constitutionality, perhaps you are right. Before we take a program to the federal level, perhaps it should be piloted in state like California. If successful, we could then figure out how to broaden it.
Whatever the case, we should all join in figuring out how to get ourselves universal health care, instead of this private insurance system that nobody seems to like.
71. Some Assembly Required | March 24th, 2008 at 8:12 am
69. westmich | March 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Bill HR 676: SEC. 303
“First Priority in Retraining and Job Placement; 2 Years of Unemployment Benefits- The Program shall provide that clerical, administrative, and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors offices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration–
(1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and
(2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits.”
You are correct it would be for insurance company employees. This is also an added benefit for them to switch to the ‘not for profit’ classification without angering their workforce.
Phnx, Under the table pay will always be an issue. That is not the issue at hand here. It is heathcare and how to pay for it. Incidentally, the majority of workers getting paid in cash are Trades workers and immigrants. Your assuming everyone will pick up a trade and collect 2 years of unemployment is preposterous. Sure some may, but what alternative would you propose? Just fire them without compensation because the system is simply failing. When they apply for well-fare are you willing to pay for that?
I do agree with you that someone making $150,000 a year is far from rich, but by comparison to someone making $30,000 they certainly aren’t poor.
This purposed system is not perfect, but it’s a lot better than McCain’s play and less as socialized as the dem’s plan. It also ensures insurance companies are regulated.
72. Eric T | March 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am
After reading this I think McCain’s plan could use a little more refining. People need to want to, get on the straight talk express, and every seat has got to be filled, not just the VIP section in the front. Each year insurance costs go up, benefits get less, services like chiropratic care, eliminated, co- pays increase, more cost shifted to the worker for less beneifits. The democrats have two decent issues with health care and social security. On most other issues they have records to be ashamed of. But this is one McCain may want to work on more.
73. phnx | March 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
An across the board flat tax with no exceptions, and no deductions, could solve the problem. As long as everyone is paying the same rate it can’t be viewed as wealth redistribution.
The alternative of a VAT tax (consumption tax) with no income tax rate would also be acceptable. The obvious exception should be for food stuffs. That would also be a fair way of spreading the burden.
74. DM | March 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
”Any reform in healthcare will have to result in a tax increase. This is simply a reality.” -SAR
And there is one of your biggest problems, in fact one of the biggest problems of the typical Liberal / Democrat mindset. If it’s not working throw more money at it, spend till it hurts. How many more programs will the top 5% of income earners have to support on top of this one? Seems like that’s all Libs do, make the “rich” pay for it. By the time we get done with them they won’t have any where near as much money as they EARNED. But hey, that’s ok, as long as it doesn’t come out of my pocket.
Why can’t we FIRST start with the ways to cut costs, you know, make improvements that don’t require additional expenditures? Tort reform has been shown to do just that. Seems like a good place to start.
The current tort system in many areas of the country is one of the leading causes of doctors leaving their practice. Socializing health care will drive them further away. Fewer doctors mean greater cost, less personal options and more difficulty in obtaining any health care, much less quality health care.
Another area to change health cost is to remove some of the restrictions placed on “Alternative Health” care. For example, the FDA has a law that states only drugs may be used to “cure” a disease. Guess who pushed for that gem? (Hint - big pharma). Ever wonder why psychiatry is being pushed to label all mental conditions as a disease? Guess how many preschoolers are put on Ritalin in the name of hyper active child?
An Alternative Health practitioner cannot by law give you vitamin C to “cure” you of the disease or physical condition called scurvy, even though real vitamin C (not the synthetic crap) is known to do just that. The Alternative Health practitioner can give you vitamin C, but if s/he states that it will “cure” your scurvy then s/he would be in violation of the law and subject to prosecution, fines and potential loss of the license to practice.
This is just a simplified example of what happens on a daily basis where Alternative Health practitioners are stripped of their ability to help the patients. And that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have oversight. Even Alternative Health practitioners are required to get certification and licenses.
If you look closely (doesn’t even have to be that close) you’ll see that big pharma has a huge negative affect on health care and its cost. It is almost a certainty that if you are on 2 or more prescription drugs for specific aliments, you will also be taking a handful of additional prescription drugs to combat the side affects of the original 2. Ever wonder why grandma is taking a bucket of pills every day?
The top brass of the medical society is controlled largely by the drug companies with “donations” to the research facilities and universities. If you untangle that mess I think you’ll find there are a whole lot of safer, less expensive options to what is being pushed on the public (and med students).
Don’t get me wrong. I believe most doctors really want what’s best for their patients, but between their education at these research universities and carefully worded laws their hands are often tied. Result – compromised health and greater unnecessary cost.
So please, don’t just assume that we have to spend more money to fix things and just as bad to believe that we can / should force all of those cost on the “rich”.
75. MaxGXL Benefits of Glutat&hellip | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
MaxGXL Benefits of Glutathione » MaxGXL Glutathione
I\’m clocking in at over 170 pounds these days, which is a bad thing for someone of my size and frame and age; really, at this point I\’m just a couple of doughnuts away from the \”spiritually defeated middle- aged white man\” look, and as you …
76. New York City body contou&hellip | June 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
New York City body contouring
Patients who have attended and been successful with weight loss programs normally opt for this procedure in a bid to smoothen and tone the body. There are advanced techniques available that are routine to adept and experienced plastic surgeons.
77. New York City bus tour&hellip | June 15th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
New York City bus tour
Well, how will you go about getting a New Yorker interested enough to tell you about all the places to see, and provide you with enough facts about the sights? By paying them of course!
78. Ganz Teddy Bears&hellip | September 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Ganz Teddy Bears
Acai (ah- sigh- ee) is often considered to have the best nutritional value of any fruit on earth, and an antioxidant capacity of 200%- 750% higher than any other fruit or vegetable. Antioxidants are known to boost the immune system and promote healing….