Does anyone believe we, as a nation, can afford Universal Healthcare? Judging strictly from the dismal performance of government's handling of the VA, and VA Clinics nationwide, why would anyone want national healthcare? Hillary said last week that anyone choosing NOT to enroll would be see their wages garnished anyway... no choice but to enroll.
The government cannot afford to begin paying out Social Security benefits to the Baby Boomer generation, AND provide medical care for every single American. It will bankrupt this country and drive everyone's taxes up to 50-75% of income... regardless of one's level of income.
Europe has publicly stated that the United States will cease to be the top economic power in under 20 years. Universal Healthcare will only hasten that day. Other talk in Europe surrounds the idea of absorbing the United States as an ancillary member; subject to its laws and governance BEFORE America's coming economic collapse-- better to do it soon when such an absorption might benefit Europe, rather than later.
Everyone gets their knickers in a twist when I rail against the 'evil Liberals,' but I can't help but wonder why the twisted-knickers can't see what is plainly obvious. Universal Healthcare is a very bad idea.
On a side note: the overall economy is not likely to improve under the Democrats. Especially if they foist Universal Healthcare on us. But more to the point, unless the dollar begins to gain in strength against the Euro, our economy is on a fast track to second-class world-citizenship. Nations are already beginning to divest themselves of our dollar in favor of the Euro.
The idea of a one-world government is gaining in the hearts and minds of the world... in the hearts and minds of U.S. citizens as well. Don't say it can't happen. National governments tend to change every few hundred years. And we're due for a big one.
Currently 12% of what the country pays in health care costs go to administrative fees. In the Medicare system that number is less than 4%. If the rest of the country could reach that level then the national savings would be in the billions.
As far as social security that program can be made solvent with just a few minor changes. Raising the retirement age 5-7 years, or a one time deposit of about $1-trillion and the fund would be able to pay 100% benefits for the next century. Even if we do nothing then in about 25 years social security will decline to paying about 75% of benefits. The system will not completely collapse.
It amazes me every time I hear the Lib spin on healthcare. As you know I am living up here at the northern border. Droves of people come from Ontario, Canada to get medical treatment here. I know a couple myself. They would rather pay their own money to get prompter (and better)treatment here than wait for months to get treated through "free" Canadian healthcare which has become a broken system. Many Canadians get work here and commute over the border every day just to get the medical benefits. Seriously, look up the problems that have arisen in the system next door and take note of the people who have died before receiving proper treatment, surgery or testing.
The last thing this country needs is another bureaucratic coup d’état.
If you can take some random report from one guy as truth-- never mind the fact that it comes from a blog actively campaigning for universal health care in the U.S.! Well! At least my link doesn't come from a source actively campaigning AGAINST universal health care in America.
You haven't proven your case.
Keeping in mind that there are some very definite costs associated with NOT having insurance for everyone, as well as with having gov't be the resource for health insurance.
MSU gal has offered some anectdotal evidence. Ben has offered a bit more solid case. Anyone have solid research into the costs and benefits of each?
"...no real dog..."
Got any imaginary?
The article from David Gratzer was very interesting. Did you know that Rudy Guiliani quoted from that article when he was speechifying on healthcare. He said, "My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? 82%. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44%, under socialized medicine." And that would be very strong evidence, except that it's wrong. The UK Health Secretary immediately denounced the statement. Congressional Quarterly wrote, "Rudy Giuliani used cancer statistics from a conservative journal to compare the U.S. and the U.K. but the stats are wrong and the underlying comparison is faulty at best." Even the researchers Mr. Gratzer referenced came forward and said he misrepresented their findings. Pardon me if I don't put much stock in this article by David Gratzer.
By the way Medicare has the highest patient satisfaction ratings of any medical insurer in the United States.
By size I mean population, not mass :)
Did you see the report on 60 Minutes this weekend about the Bayer drug Trasylol. Apparently the drug reduces bleeding in heart surgeries. It also can seriously damage the liver. Bayer marketed the drug to doctors so successfully, that it became the de facto standard. Then the reports came out showing how many people it might have killed. Bayer stopped selling the drug last November. Scientists think almost 22,000 people may have died as a result of the drug. The FDA never sponsored a study on the drug. Bayer did a study. Independent scientists did a study. Even the Canadian Board of Health sponsored a study, though they aborted theirs -- to many participants were dying. And the kick in the head is that there are actually TWO generic drugs that cost less then Trasylol, work just as well and don't have the side effects.
Do you think our current health care system is the best?
I hate how much of my income goes toward insurance each month - but I budget and sacrifice in other areas to do so. I only see my cost being worse if Universal Health Care is implemented.
Insurance companies make money by selling policies to people who have a 50% chance or better of not needing those policies. The capitalistic market encourages them to deny coverage to anyone who would actually need their services. Does that make sense? Single-payer/universal healthcare expands the pool of participants and averages the cost over the entire nation. So that even though there are 5-10 million of people with expensive medical problems there are 300 million paying into the health care pool.
Right now if you don't like the service you health insurer provides is there anyway you can hold them accountable? If we had universal coverage then you could call your congressman to directly liaison with the federal health board.
What do you pay in a year for family health coverage? What percentage of your yearly income is that? What if you could pay that in taxes instead and insure that every single person in the US had basic health coverage?
Ben, do you know specifics of either Obama's or Clinton's plans? How do they compare?
One I know proposing mandating that everyone have health insurance and subsidizes that requirement with a free/low-cost federal plan while at the same time giving tax breaks for those that choose other plans. I think that is Clinton's plan.
The other plan I am not informed on the specifics of. For me it is the overall idea of the nation pooling health risk to reduce the individual burden. That makes sense to me. I won't be taking a close look at individual policies until someone gets elected and proposes actual legislation.
If I had trouble with paying what MY insurance didn't cover, imagine all those worse off than I, medically AND financially, who simply cannot pay now under our current system, being added to the universal roles.
The cost to the government now simply to enforce compliance of our tax law is estimated to be between 5-10 billion dollars annually. Imagine the cost of providing the indigent, who cannot pay the premiums, universal health care. Right now hospitals cover these costs. What Hillary and Obama are suggesting is that we the taxpayer be MADE to pay for their care-- we're already paying for it! The rates for those who can pay will climb to cover the indigent. When congressional cost estimates prove to be a pipe dream, the cost will be passed on to the taxpayer, wages will decrease, and the cost of simply living will skyrocket.
Just an observation here, but what about personal incentive to BE healthy? Under universal care will there be any incentive, initially, to stay or get healthy? I mean, if the government is just going to take care of everything, why should I care about how I eat, or how much I exercise? Until I realize I can't get in to see a doctor when I need to SEE a doctor....
I don't think anyone is saying the current system is working very well, especially when you consider the biggest special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, controls virtually every aspect of the care we receive. Take the pharmaceutical industry out of education, and clean up the FDA. Begin there, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give us something that will ultimately kill or negatively impact more people than the system we now have.
On top of all this are the doctors, who even today have little incentive to learn about alternative medicine as there's more money in pushing the latest alchemical wonder being pushed by drug-reps.
There are a whole host of cures and preventatives to disease and conditions that come from natural foods. Doctors however are taught from medical schools supported in no small degree by pharmaceutical companies to push their medicines. I'm not saying medicines are not beneficial... some are, but most doctors chuckle and roll their eyes when a patient suggests a desire to try something more natural. That's how they're trained. Cancer is curable without Chemo and radiation. But 95 plus percent of doctors don't believe that. Some doctors will refuse to see you if you will not agree to treatments they prescribe. Want to go natural? Don't expect most oncologists to agree to help you track your progress.
Under universal care the pharmaceutical companies will continue to push drugs that cost the industries billions to produce that will kill untold patients until media exposes the dangers of "drug Y." Nothing will change for the better. It will only get worse than it is now... only then we'll be stuck with it. Because if nothing I've said thus far rings true in anyone's ears, this most certainly is:
Government, once it has power, is cruelly reluctant to relinquish power.
And what is more cruel than forcing genuinely sick people to wait for weeks or months for lifesaving treatment?
Consider the young woman just a few weeks ago who died because her insurance company would not approve a liver transplant. Approving it ONLY after a huge public outcry, and then, only after she was too sick for her doctors to attempt the surgery. Does anyone believe the government will be any more altruistic than insurance companies?
You don't really believe that, do you?
The biggest fact to support universal single-payer healthcare, is that the people in the US happiest with their medical insurance are those on Medicare. The people with the greatest return in Life expectancy for medical dollar spent are those in the VA system.
My grandmother is covered with both VA and Medicare. Every three months she goes to the VA clinic and has a full blood panel. She sees a nurse practitioner and talks about her health. The VA keeps track of her medication and when she needs a refill she calls an 800 number and the refill is mailed to her that week. Medicare coverage allows her to see a general practitioner every two months or whenever followup is needed. Whenever she has an issue she calls her GP and makes an appointment, there's no waiting, no rationing of services. Why do you have a fear that a wider national system would have these restrictions?
Truly you seem to make both sides of the argument. first you bemoan the expense on covering everyone. Then you complain about how doctors are dazzled by drug companies and how medical coverage has no incentives for cheaper care.
A national system would be incentivized for cost-effective care. People want to know their tax money is being used wisely, but I don't think rationing would be the result. Instead I think you would see the government sponsoring studies to actually see what care is most beneficial. Right now there is no federal agency tasked with that responsibility. It is haphazardly left to medical colleges and drug companies. And if a universal care program started rationing care, you'd see op-eds in major papers, exposes on news magazines. This is not a brand new idea. It's only new to the United States.