Medicare for All Is a Killer
By Peter Ferrara
America's Left/Liberals, and their spokesman Barack Obama, insist that everything about health care would be wonderful if only the government would take it over. Their preferred plan, embraced by Obama, is to throw Medicare open to everyone, and then over time force everyone into it. They say if you have employer-provided insurance, you can keep it. But that choice will be up to the employer, not you. As the government forces costly regulatory burdens, like guaranteed issue and community rating, onto private insurance, employers facing the soaring premiums will just dump their workers into Medicare. These costly regulatory burdens, plus the taxpayer subsidies for Medicare, will eventually drive out all private insurance alternatives.
This is what the left has been proposing for many years now. They have called it "Medicare for All." No point in denying that now, when they have got the President and Congressional majorities to pass it. The question to consider is, "Is Medicare for All a good idea?"
Medicare Is Already Bankrupt
The Medicare Board of Trustees released their latest annual report earlier this month. It shows that Medicare is already hopelessly bankrupt. We don't know how we are going to pay for all the Medicare promises we have already made.
The Trustees Report estimates that the unfunded liability for Medicare alone is $89 trillion. Social Security adds another $15.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities, for a total of $104 trillion. And that doesn't even count Medicaid. The entire American economy right now only produces about $14 trillion a year.
By 2018, less than 10 years from now, Medicare Part A alone will be running a deficit of close to $100 billion. General revenue contributions for Medicare Parts B and D that year are now projected to be $364 billion. Consequently, the deficit for Medicare alone that year will be close to $500 billion. And this assumes a scheduled reduction in doctor and hospital reimbursements under Medicare of over 20% starting in 2010.
Medicaid will also be costing the federal government close to $500 billion per year by then, with another $300 billion spent on the program by the states. That is a total burden on general taxpayers for these two programs alone of $1.3 trillion by 2018, in addition to payroll taxes and Medicare premiums. Medicare premiums by 2018 are projected to be about $750 per month per beneficiary, covering only 14% of expenditures. Medicare will be spending by that year close to $17,000 per beneficiary.
Medicare Part A will run out of funds to pay promised benefits by 2017, with a 20% shortfall in revenues. Paying all promised benefits for Part A alone over the long run would require raising the total Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% today to 12%. That is in addition to the Social Security payroll tax of 12.4% today, which would have to increase to close to 18% to pay all promised benefits for that program. That would result in a total payroll tax rate of 30%.
Given this overwhelming financial disaster, does it make sense for the government to take on even more financial burdens through Medicare? Medicare is supposed to be for retirees. What would all these new financial burdens for everyone do to the program originally intended for them?
Indeed, one has to ask, do the Medicare for All nuts even understand numbers? Or are they what they appear to be, numerically illiterate?
Government Health Care Rationing
Medicaid, which pays for health care for the poor, shows where Medicare for seniors is headed. Medicaid promises free health care for the poor, but then refuses to pay the doctors and hospitals for it, or at least pay them enough to provide quality health care for the poor. As a result, about 40% of doctors and hospitals already refuse to take Medicaid patients.
This translates into real suffering for the poor on Medicaid. They have to scramble to get appointments with the doctors who will see them, and the doctors give them shorter appointments and less attention to fit what the government is willing to pay for them. They have to wait longer to see the essential specialists or for admissions to the hospitals willing to take Medicaid patients. The end result studies show is that the poor get less adequate health care, and suffer worse health outcomes, including more and earlier deaths from heart disease and cancer. This should be no surprise, because it is the inevitable result of all government-run health care throughout history the world over.
Medicare is already headed down this same road. The fees it pays are not as bad as Medicaid, but already doctors and hospitals are starting to opt out of the program, and it will be a lot closer to Medicaid after the 20% cut for doctor and hospital reimbursements now scheduled for next year. If Congress reverses those planned cuts, then all of the already unbearable spending numbers for the program discussed above will be 20% higher.
With the already intractable financial gaps in Medicare discussed above, more cuts in payments for doctors and hospitals serving seniors are inevitable. And that means less quality health care for seniors. When everyone is then dumped into Medicare under the perspicacious "Medicare for All" reforms, what is going to happen then?
Since we already can't pay for Medicare as it is, the result is going to be government health care rationing for all, just as happens everywhere such government-run medicine has been tried. The government will pay even less to doctors and hospitals for care under the program. The doctors and hospitals will all be working for the government that is paying them, not you. The government will decide what health care for you is worth paying for, and when you are going to get it.
Leading liberals are already calling for such government health care rationing. Tom Daschle, who Obama originally picked for health care czar because of his health policy insights, writes in his recent book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis, that the British model of health care rationing is ideal for the U.S. The British government brazenly decides whether the health care its citizens need is worth the costs to the government. They evenly openly weigh the benefits of health care for seniors as worth less because seniors have fewer years left to live and enjoy the advantages of the health improvements the government is paying for. That is why the Orwellian named NICE, National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness, in Britain recently ruled that it would not pay for treatment for macular degeneration for seniors until the patient went blind in one eye. Seniors have been denied treatments for cancer on the same grounds. In Canada, they just make you wait to see a cancer specialist until it is too late to save you.
Milton Friedman called it "The Black Hole of Socialized Medicine," the term he used to explain the tendency of government health care systems to cost more and more while producing less and less in quality health care. A national health plan increases costs by increasing demand. This comes not only from the formerly uninsured, but from the incentives faced by everyone. With the government paying the bill, the incentive is to consume health care until the net benefit from it is equal to zero, rather than equal to costs as in an efficient market. In other words, consume it until it hurts. The natural political features of a national health plan exacerbate this, with broad coverage for everything from mental health to dental care, satisfying political interests. And, of course, only minimal deductibles and co-pays.
A national health plan also reduces supply, further increasing costs. A government monopoly taking over health care is not exactly going to inspire a new influx of human and physical capital into the health industry to meet the increased demand. Quite to the contrary, the government's long policy of underpaying doctors and hospitals under Medicare and Medicaid will be extended to the entire health care system under a national health plan. That will cause both human and physical capital resources to flee health care, reducing supply and raising costs. That is why health care under national health plans always suffers from deteriorating facilities, and a severely short supply of the latest, most advanced, high tech medical equipment, which requires high levels of capital investment. These policies adopted in America will kill a lot of people in the end, including some reading this article.
Liberals who insist that Obama's health plan would not involve anything like this are whistling past the graveyard. They are like Bambi prancing in the woods while the hunters advance in search of venison. Even top liberals who have studied the issue like Daschle are telling us that such government rationing is the only way to control costs under national health care. The Brookings Institution has said the same for many years now, long publishing books calling for government health care rationing.
This is the bleak health care future for seniors under Medicare, and every one else in the program. As for the doctors and hospitals under this Medicare for All, don't look to the fiscal conservatives to bail you out once you are government dependents yourselves. We represent taxpayers, not doctors and hospitals living off of the government. I would expect doctors and hospital administrators eventually to have to move out of their fancy suburban homes, and move into public housing, getting about the same income as under AFDC and food stamps, right behind those bank executives still looking for their bonuses. You can turn to ACORN for your bailout, since the AMA is now thoroughly failing you. The AMA is interested only in keeping its own Washington nest feathered, not in maintaining your lifestyle.
The Patient Power Alternative
Barack Obama says his health care reforms are all about preserving choices. But as on every other issue, this is meant only to distract you from what is really going to happen, which is just the opposite. The only choice you will have left after his reforms is the much heralded "Medicare for All," with your health care choices made by the government for you, as discussed above.
The health care reform plan that does preserve and expand choices is the Republican alternative led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in the House and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) in the Senate. That plan provides an income tax credit of $2300 for individuals and $5700 for families to help pay for any health coverage they want. Even if you have employer insurance and you want something else, you can take this money and choose the alternative you prefer. If you are poor and suffering on Medicaid, in addition to this money you can choose a health insurance voucher paying up to $5,000 more for the insurance of your choice. If you are on Medicare, the freedom to choose alternative private insurance coverage that close to 25% of seniors already enjoy is expanded.
So everyone under this Ryan-Coburn plan has more choices. But the health care reforms promoted by Obama and the Democrat Left include none of these choices!! That is because their real goal, openly professed, is Medicare for All, where the government will have total power and control to run health care in the left's vision of social justice, and everyone will be dependent on the left's political machine to get health care.
The vastly increased choices under Ryan-Coburn give workers, the poor, retirees, and patients all of the power, instead of the government, employers, and even private health care bureaucracies like HMOs. These individuals are all free to choose the health coverage they each prefer, and insurers have to compete to give them what they want. This includes most importantly health plans like Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which maximize patient choice and control.
With an HSA, the individual keeps most of the money in his own health savings account, with the rest going to purchase catastrophic coverage paying for all expenses over a high annual deductible chosen by the individual, usually $2,000 to $5,000 per year. (Smart people would choose deductibles of $5,000 to $6,000 per year). The cost of such catastrophic coverage is greatly reduced, allowing the savings in the account to grow quickly to cover the entire deductible. The patient is free to use the money in the account for any health care he or she chooses, including preventive care, check-ups, prescriptions, dental care, eye care, and the full range of alternative medicine. Nothing could do more to put the patient in control of his own health care.
At the same time, HSAs restore powerful market incentives to control costs. Money kept in HSAs can be used for health care in later years, or for anything in retirement. So patients are effectively using their own money for non-catastrophic care. That means they will avoid overly costly or unnecessary care, and look for doctors and hospitals that can provide them quality care at lower cost, creating real market competition to reduce costs. These incentives have proven highly effective, and are the only morally sound means of reducing health care costs across the board.
Save Yourself
In contrast, if the health policy reforms favored by Obama and the Left are passed, the only alternative for the American people to protect themselves and their families is to buy health insurance covering health care provided overseas. Since such insurance will be outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., it will not be regulated for fairness, which means it will be low cost and affordable. Of course, you will have to travel to the Caribbean or elsewhere to get care for serious illnesses like heart disease or cancer. But that is where you will find all the smart doctors and surgeons, living in Caribbean villas, and driving hot rod sports cars with old-fashioned gas combustion engines.
Edited by mod to add source: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/27/medicare-for-all-is-a-killer
Karen Millen
"They say if you have employer-provided insurance, you can keep it. But that choice will be up to the employer, not you."
Just so everyone understands this. Why would an employer voluntarily PAY for something that the government is going to provide for "free"? It makes no sense, and in most cases the investors would/will vote to get rid of it as well, as it gives them more potential profits.
1Yeah, i'm super scared of government healthcare. I've seen government housing, and I don't want that kind of quality as my health insurance, yikes!
The thing I guess that scares me most is that they dont care for a life. The elderly should just deal with getting old?! Ridiculous! On a side note, Daschle also thinks that we shouldn't keep coming out with new drugs. Um, ok?! Don't most people have a will to live? Wouldn't you want whatever drug you could get your hands on to help you get better? So really what this guy is saying is, no to new drugs for AIDS, no to new drugs for Alzheimer's, no to new drugs for Parkinson's. AWESOME, sign me up for a life of misery.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
2It scares me too brooke. Why do I want the government telling me I'm too old to have the medication that would save me?
3If you think that "rationing" is scare tactics,or the ability to find doctors that accept Medicaid, let me assure you with two decades of being a foster parent for abused and neglected infants, toddlers,and preschool children in two LIBERAL states, New York, and Washington. It is next to impossible to find a doctor, and is impossible to find a dentist, if you are paying through medicaid. In cases for a GP, In NY, our family pediatrician agreed to take medicaid, since we were long term patients of hers. Our dentist would not take medicaid. In NY that meant a two to four month wait for a clinic appointment using a list provided by Social services, that handled foster care. Here in Washington, my wife's doctor that was also the doctor for my two daughters, gave my wife a referral to a pediatrician she knew, and that doctor agreed to see the foster kids. As far as a dentist, we got NO HELP from social services, and my wife called every Dentist in the phone book, down to the letter "V" before we found one to take the little girl we had, who's teeth were literally rotting out of her mouth.
My Uncle (at the time in his mid '80s), was having congestive heart failure when I arrived in Ireland, I recognised the symptoms immediately, since it killed my father in law, eventually I had to drive to a town west of us to see his own personal physician to get a note to ALLOW him to go to the hospital emergency room, that was two towns over from us to the East of my uncles farm. I had to drive him and take him to the emergency room, and had to wait so long that I blew my stack, was threatened with arrest, but got my uncle admitted. My uncle admitted to being " a bit out of sorts all morning".
4I am pretty sure that respiratory distress will be the cause of my final departure. Once they ration medicare down to my age level, I will be gone within the year.
5"America's Left/Liberals, and their spokesman Barack Obama, insist that everything about health care would be wonderful if only the government would take it over."
6When an article starts with a lie, what's the point of continuing?
For you Steph, no reason at all.
7GPa, that is another aspect that makes this so scary. It used to be some of the best and brightest went into medicine. Part of the attraction was the money to be made. (Please everyone note that I said part. I am not saying that money is the only reason people go into medicine.) If they no longer have the ability to make the money, some of those people will go to other professions where they can still make a good living. I can see doctors getting out of the med business because of the regulations that medicare for all will bring.
I'm not saying it very well today, but bottom line, we will lose doctors which leads to a diminished supply while we are greatly increasing the demand for doctors.
8For anyone, starting with a lie should be an important indicator of the liar's interest in a sincere discussion.
9Steph, for someone who stopped reading the first sentence of the article, what is the purpose of you comming back to make another comment?
10Is Ambramoff now lobbying for private insurance overseas? Would seem to fit the pattern around Peter Ferrera's previous editorials.
11If docyors get paid like social workers, forget raising a family without both spouses working full time. It was two children that had me switch my career focus, leaving the best job I have ever had in my life, to one of sitting at a desk, day in and day out.
12I know that back in 2004, I had no insurance what so ever and I did not get the quality care that I deserved. In fact the first question out of their mouth in the emergency room is, "I need your insurance card." I spent 30 minutes in the emergency room before anyone came and saw me. I also know that around the Northwest ohio area doctors are not taking Medicare or Medicaid (I think I spelled that right). So people go to the "free" clinics but those clinics are nothing but a joke. I think that President has his heart in the right place by wanting everyone to be covered with insurance, but I think he needs to work on getting the cost of medical treatments and medicines down first. I mean, I can't even go to a doctor without getting charged over $100 to walk through the door, and if you go to a specialist, you can forget having them accept payments of any kind around here. It is all up front or you do not get help and they will not accept any insurance have the time because they do not want to deal with the companies.
13""America's Left/Liberals, and their spokesman Barack Obama, insist that everything about health care would be wonderful if only the government would take it over." I must say that I agree with Steph that this statement was off-putting and really makes the author seem petty and lose credibility.
As to the topic, employers are going to be forced to start dumping their employer sponsored health plans soon regardless of whether or not there is "Medicare for All". Many already have. Healthcare is getting too expensive for everyone. Premiums are raised yearly at a rate of about 13%. If employers do decide to keep it (like my employer did) they are switching to high deductible plans to keep the premiums "lower". But all that is doing is staving off the inevitable and pushing more of the cost onto the employee. Next year or maybe the year after they won't be able to keep up with the cost of premiums and will have to dump the plans altogether. We need a fix to healthcare now, im not sure "Medicare for All" is the way to do it, but I do know something needs to be done.
"I spent 30 minutes in the emergency room before anyone came and saw me." I have insurance and I have waited much longer than that in an emergency room. I also, with insurance, have to pay $100 dollars to go to the doctor before my $5k premium is met. I pay for all of my prescriptions out of pocket and forget it if I have to go to the emergency room, that costs at least $400. Just this past week, my son got a double ear infection and strep throat which required two drs visits and two antibiotics to the tune of approximately $400, and this is all with insurance that costs me $400 in premiums a month.
14just know - it is the same in Switzerland - our insurances are private - but - also get aid payments fm the government - it depends on the taxrate per Kanton - i.e. the higher the taxrate the lower the monthly installments of healthcare - yet the government taking over - they are kidding...
15I am sorry to hear that your son got an ear infection Roarman. I do understand, because I am currently going to a specialist that my insurance will not cover, so I am spending about $1200 a month for treatments and medications, which I simply can not afford. Something does need to be done that is for sure.
16First fix what we have now, medicare, medicaid, and social security. Once that is put on a sustainable basis, then maybe do children 6 and under, after that has been tested and there is still a demand for more increase the ages of the children. DO NOT for Gods sake, add any more debt that adds to the deficit. That "in the long run" argument was used to pass medicare and medicaid. Look what that "long run" has gotten you, a system my generation took full advantage of, while passing the costs down to yours and subsequent generations to deal with.
17But what about 7 year olds Gpa? What about the parents of a four year old? Ill parents are no good to a healthy child. I agree with your point we need to fix the leaking siv that is our existing government plans, but we also need to fix the fact that millions of people are not insured at all and those that are don't really have coverage when they truly need it. This underinsurance or no insurance is a real problem and an expensive one.
18You can forget any new advances in medicine, unless you set up a governmental pay system that makes going into "research" worth the cost in educational training, and provided they don't come up with a new treatment the government then says is "too expensive" to implement. Aids, cancer, Alzheimer's, macular degeneration, etc. will forever be what it is today. God forbid a genetic mutation of a disease we already control. Think of a world without penicillin. Only those born pre WWII, can tell you first hand what penciling meant to them.
19Another possible example of my generation benefiting at the expense of future generations.
20Monique, you only had to wait 30 minutes in an emergency room? You're lucky! I've always had insurance and I've always had to wait much longer. It sucks, but with the way intake nurses are trained to prioritize those with the highest need, it happens.
21Wow, i can't believe the cost of some of your insurances! I've had several different ones over the years and have never had to pay more than $25 an office visit (which yes is a lot, but okay by me), and at the most maybe $50 a month as premium. I think i currently pay $30 a month for my premium.
But i'd rather pay more for good healthcare then be sat on the sidelines while the government who is NOT in my everyday life decided what treatments i need and what drugs i need.
Sounds bad, but if this does come to fruition, i hope those that are for this mess see the error of their ways quickly. I'm sure though that many still wont get it when their grandmother keels over from a disease that could have been treated or their father has a stroke or their mom needs alzheimer's medicine.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
22AND i'm not saying i wish anyone dead...i'm just saying that hopefully they'll understand how hard for them it will be to get the care they need. Maybe then they'll wise up?
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
23also, i'm so-so okay with children 18 and younger having an alternative option for healthcare. But adults 18 and older can and should take care of themselves. I dont want to pay for an adults treatment, i have my own stuff to take care of. Children can't exactly fend for themselves.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
24In this country we have people in debt, mortgaging their homes, and just drowning because of one medical experience. You don't have that in other countries with socialized medicine. And you have businesses, small or massive alike, that cannot afford to employ U.S. workers and provide health care. I don't know what the specific answer is to all this (I sure wouldn't take the advice of this author, that's for sure), but to ignore this fact and just say fix medicare or medicaid doesn't address this major problem effecting Americans and only Americans today.
25I agree medical expenses are crazy expensive, but I'd like to keep the choice of having them done, instead of the government making that call for me. Freedoms people, freedoms!
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
26Brookrene, who is threatening to take your freedom away?
"Obama hasn’t called for such a government-run plan, also called a “single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White House’s “Health Care” Web page (and previously on its transition site) that “President Obama and Vice President Biden believe” that government-run health care is “wrong.” And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, “letting the insurance companies operate without rules,” is wrong. (The White House redesigned its health care page on April 30; a cached page with the quoted language is attached to this article.)
Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate."
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html
27mydiadem, the best solution is a tax credit based on family size that would allow each individual to shop around for the plan that best suits their needs. Adjusting the size of that tax credit up or down, is a lot better way to assure adequate health care, without overburdening the system. Some weeks ago on 60 minutes they did a piece on medicare, they interviewed a group of elderly that have condo's together, it has every amenity you could ask for. The minimum "buy in" was a bit under 1/2 million dollars. Yet there were women their that used a doctors office as a place as as one women put it too meet socially. They were abusing Medicare, because it cost THEM nothing. What is free is abused. When Fidel Castro came into office one of the reforms he introduced was "free" water to all households that had plumbing. Who can argue with that right? Within a year they had to institute a charge for that water use. Why because folks would not turn off their faucets, after all the water was 'free".
28stephley - Like someone said above...why would employers, etc. still offer insurance when we'd be getting it for free from the government? and if the government is running my healthcare, how long til i look like government housing!? So though i wouldn't be "forced" i'm sure my lovely option of choosing a provider would up and run out the door.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
29stephley, since i keep saying all the bad things about government-run health care, i'd like to hear some good points about it. why you think it will work, etc.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
30'"America's Left/Liberals, and their spokesman Barack Obama, insist that everything about health care would be wonderful if only the government would take it over."
When an article starts with a lie, what's the point of continuing?"
Thank you steph that was the first thought that popped into my mind too.
As for some comments I've seen about the government not providing certain medications, what's to stop health care providers in the current system from withholding those same medications? They are businesses after-all and their profits are bigger when their expenses are lower.
31"stephley, since i keep saying all the bad things about government-run health care, i'd like to hear some good points about it. why you think it will work, etc."
You'll need to find someone who is pushing the notion of government-run health care to answer that question.
32I'm really not sure where everyone is getting their information on what Obama is proposing but I haven't seen anything where he has said he wants 'medicare for all'.
33oh cool stephley, we agree! i assumed you were for national health-care. whew.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
34That's the problem with reading articles that begin with lies Brook.
35well, it wasn't because of that.
~~~~~
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
36I can't think of a worse source than this author to try to start a debate on healthcare. I'll post another article that I think gives a different prespective and more facts.
37Genesis, what prevents "State Farm" from having a $1000, deductible or not paying for any damage to your car if it was determined that you were the proximate cause of said accident? well Farmers, Allstate, and GEICO jump instantly to my mind. If State farm was actually run by the state, with no competition allowed. Well they could set any rules they wanted.
With tax credit a healthy family could opt for dental and eye coverage, with just a " catastrophic" coverage. Let's say a $5,000 deductible. A family with asthma or allergy problems would maybe eschew eye, or dental, or both to get coverage for what the expect to be an annual expense. To get affordable coverage for a pre-existing condition on your own is hard to impossible. Companies that insure their employees could get that preexisting condition paid for. In fact several corporations could join together to negotiate a monthly rate for all their employees combined. The cost of that person would be offset by "economies of scale", like those who never or rarely go to a doctor.
38mydiadem, it served it's purpose, to start a dialogue on this board. I think this topic is without a doubt the most important bill out there and needs to be fully debated.
39"But i'd rather pay more for good healthcare then be sat on the sidelines while the government who is NOT in my everyday life decided what treatments i need and what drugs i need" But its ok with you if insurance companies are making these decisions? Insurance companies routinely deny coverage. As Mydi pointed out, thousands of Americans who had "good" health insurance are now going bankrupt because of a serious illness that there "good" insurance isn't covering.
"the best solution is a tax credit based on family size that would allow each individual to shop around for the plan that best suits their needs. Adjusting the size of that tax credit up or down, is a lot better way to assure adequate health care, without overburdening the system." I might consider this a viable option only if there is major regulation of the insurance industry that would make things like denying treatment due to a pre existing condition impossible. Health insurers routinely deny coverage when its truly needed to the many loopholes available to them. The health insurance industry is a busines whose number one concern is its profits and bottom line, not treating patients. There would also need to be help available to people to understand the vast, confusing paperwork and language involved with health insurance policies. We can not pit individuals against the professionals of the health industry. I understand personal responsibility, but in this instance the decks would not be stacked evenly.
40The effects on the citizenry is without parallel with regards to long term total costs.
41"With tax credit a healthy family could opt for dental and eye coverage, with just a " catastrophic" coverage. Let's say a $5,000 deductible. A family with asthma or allergy problems would maybe eschew eye, or dental, or both to get coverage for what the expect to be an annual expense. To get affordable coverage for a pre-existing condition on your own is hard to impossible. Companies that insure their employees could get that preexisting condition paid for. In fact several corporations could join together to negotiate a monthly rate for all their employees combined. The cost of that person would be offset by "economies of scale", like those who never or rarely go to a doctor." The thing with illnesses are that they are unpredictable. We cannot play our health like some sort of dice game. Well, gee honey I really wish we got that dental coverage because your unexpected root canal is going to cost $1300 and Janie needed glasses this month, and since we haven't met the deductible that will cost an additional $700. This is ridiculous. We should have access to all medical needs, including dental at a price that everyone can afford. There should be no choosing of specific services, they are all important and interrelated to a persons overall health. Poor dental health has been shown to lead to heart disease.
42The opening line is one designed to scare anyone reading this article. It does so with good reason. Simply put, nothing which the government "takes over" is ever run with the efficiency of the private sector. The bleatings of the left to insist that everyone somehow deserves to have medical coverage is somewhat inane, but it comes as no surprise. It is based on their feelings for the equality of people. This kind of self appointed angelic behavior would be admirable if it weren't for one major issue: all that the insistence on full coverage for all people will do is add an exorbitant amount of money spent to an otherwise broken system. What they insist will solve the greater problem will probably ensure that health care efficiency, what there is of it, all goes down the drain.
There are three major areas in which health care costs remain ludicrous. First, doctors in the US earn far more than doctors anywhere else (comparing industrialized countries,) even after taking into account the high insurance payments they make. Second, hospitals charge exorbitant rates for hospital care, in most cases 4 times what other industrialized countries charge. Third, pharmaceutical companies charge exorbitant rates for drugs, mostly because they are new and they are available here ahead of many other countries. Still the rate hike of 50-70% for this period of time more than makes up for what they maintain is the high degree of competition in the industry.
While we can argue which one of these issues needs to be modified, if indeed any can reasonably, it remains that committing to national health care without taking care of these issues will simply add to an overwhelming expense which most of us pay for. The greater issue of course is how to modify these areas and it is this problem which government has constantly refused to tackle. The reason it doesn't want to tackle the real problem is because the lobbies for each are wonderful sources for their reelection funds.
Health care begins and rightfully belongs to those who take care of themselves. Insurance is no less than a kind of bet on roulette, the payment into a kitty which suggests that you hedge your bets against becoming ill. Sometimes your numbers keep you healthy but too often they don't. The real question is whether we should extend all possible tests and procedures to everyone and then who pays the bill. As I see it, this has become a Catch 22. Presently things are becoming more expensive and things are becoming worse.
One of the attempts here, in suggesting that health care be controlled by the government is to directly obfuscate the real costs associated with any patient. It is all well and good that we might argue that we deserve tests and treatments which cost thousands of dollars, but can we afford to make such a choice? Borrowing money against a broken system seems to me to be the wrong way to go about it. While some people clearly read only the first line of this article, it talks about important issues. Solving real problems is more important than appearing to apply coverage to all people. The reason this is true is that health care, under Obama's plan, makes the possibility of healing much more than a broken arm or a headache a truly remote possibility.
43My father has diabetes AND is a vietnam vet and insurance companies won't cover him and he's on a waiting list to be covered by the government. A long one. My dad has a purple heart. It is CRIMINAL that this country lets insurance companies pick and choose who they will cover and who they won't. Especially vets. Vets should be taken care of for the rest of their lives...the end.
44I wish you all would read:
http://teamsugar.com/group/3040631/blog/3198821
45and consider this:
http://teamsugar.com/group/3040631/blog/3198778
46Gpa, we're not talking about car insurance here. Often people getting health insurance through their employer don't have as many options. Also a pre-existing condition makes it more complicated to switch providers. Competition might take care of things up to a point, but let's not pretend sick people are as up to the fight as someone who's been swindled out of their deductible.
Also- not to be argumentative, but why would the government want to help out with health care if it wasn't going to try to help? What would they get out of it if they're not actually going to help anyone? It would turn people against them if their plan fails, so I guess my question is what's the ulterior motive?
47Good point genesis. What is the evil government's plan? Why would they do this. What's in it for them?
48
49It is not an "evil plot", but our elected officials have a dearth of private industry experience, and are like you guys, willing to accept all Rosy projections down the road. None of them have any understanding of economics. I would be shocked to find out any one in congress with a degree in economics, or even have an MBA. Look how much of what was promised if the "stimulus" bill was passed. Go to my post # 46. I think that article lays out the problem a lot better then I can. Look, why would I be so adamant about the effects of these fiscal policies down the road. Most of what I am predicting, I will not be around to see, or if I am around, it would mean that the situation is worst then I have predicted. My concern is future generations, who will live like much of the rest of the world, with a top ruling class, owning most land and means of production, with the rest in relative poverty, with no chance to move into the wealthy class.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.