IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Two points of issue: 1) private administrative overhead costs run about 15%+ in addition to profits that must be given to stock holders, and there's always the issue of what they will cover or not cover, and many who had health insurance went bankrupt, and 2) the US proposal will have both private and public offers (I haven't seen any proposal by Obama that will be strictly government run), and will not have preexisting condition controls as now common with private insurance companies.

We already spend more than any country on public and private health insurance as a percentage of our GDP, and our health insurance rates increases are more than the rate of inflation. How much longer will companies and private citizens be able to afford health insurance?

Of course, something can be "counterintuitive" (a subjective state) and still be true.
Frankly, while I've had trouble with govt. bureaucrats, my dealings with for-profit insurance companies have been far worse.

Former Health Insurance Company Exec Tells All to the Senate


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Health-Insurance-Exec-Whis-by-Wendell-Potter-090701-739.html

Of coarse none of the conservatives suffers from the fraud perpetrated by private insurance companies; they fear a universal health plan that will cover everyone of less cost.

An article in the AARP news letter about universal health care lists the key areas of agreement:
* People who already have insurance will be able to keep it.
* Some key industry organizations such as drugmakers, doctors, and insurers have pledged to help reduce the rate of increase by 1.5% a year. That will add up to $2 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
* Even industry insiders agree that the federal regulation is needed.
* The quality of health care needs to improve to save money.
* Medicare's Part D doughnut hole should shrink.


They also agree there are still many tough issues that looms ahead. The health care debate can be followed at http://bulletin.aarp.org/healthcare_reform

Another timely article in the current issue of the AARP. They outline eight myths about health care reform.
1. Health care reform won't benefit people with insurance. Nearly 266,000 companies dropped their employee's health care coverage from 2000 to 2005.
2. The boomers with bankrupt Medicare. Looking to blame the rise in health care cost on the aging population is wrong; the elderly are growing at the rate of only 0.4% of the future cost of health care.
3. Reforming our health care will cost us more. The Commonwealth Fund based in NY estimates that health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement, but will save us approximately $3 trillion by 2020.
4. Access to quality health care will decline. Just because we have easy access to lots of doctors who prescribe lots of treatments doesn't mean we're getting good care. Researchers at Dartmouth College found that patients who received more care actually fare worse than those who receive less care.
5. I won't be able to visit my favorite doctor. Peoply worry that health reform means fewer options in doctors, treatments and diagnostic testing. But many organizations including AARP believe that far from limiting choices, it will instead prevent errors and give physicians the information they need to practice better medicine.
6. The uninsured have access to good care in the emergency room. The US does have an open door policy for those who seek emergency care, but that doesn't help get the right information to prevent a condition or get help to manage it. 41% of the uninsured have no access to preventive care, so they end up in the emergency rooms which significantly cost more to treat.
7. We'll end up with socialized medicine. All the proposals being discussed today would build on our current system.
8. We can't afford to tackle this problem now. Robert Zirkelbach, spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plan, says, "the most expensive thing we can do now is nothing at all." The CBO projects that our annual health costs will soar to about $13,000 per person in 2017, while the number of uninsured will climb to 54 million.

Conservatives must learn the facts before they spew their fear-mongering about health care reform.

Socialized government health care is far more expensive than Obama claims and it's not needed in this country.
Obamacare will only make the deficit grow and the citizens needing health care wait and wait and wait for treatment.

waterboy is a child who's sense of reality is pre programmed by his conservative brethren. All they spew are fear-mongering without providing any solutions to problems. Typical conservative meme; always dead wrong!

There are two sides to the argument ci. There's no doubt about that. One side calling the other side names is not part of that argument.

cice girl is always dead wrong and rarely funny anymore...

Hang in there, C.I..

Hang in there, C.I..

That would be true only if the "other side" just didn't offer fear-mongering but solutions. They never provide solutions.

Another thing, spendi. You do not understand the basis of debate. When they just say things like without any credible source other than their own imagination, that's not debate. That's straw man and ad hominems.

That opens the free gate for me to call them any name I wish. If they are serious about real debate, they need to provide credible information that can be sourced. However, it's obvious, they are not. They are here to spread their fear-mongering, and that's the totality of the position.

So then you wont mind being held to the same standard?

Are you honestly saying that EVERY bit of information you have ever posted here is credible and can be sourced?

That certainly depends on ... for instance the salary of the doctors.

My mother is now six weeks in hospital, due to a broken hip and various follow-up complications due to her dememntia.

She got operated now the second time (reason see above), got various medical suport equipments (up to a $2,000 "hip stabiliser" and an air-bed).
All operations were done by the head surgeon of the accident surgery department.

Afterwards, she doesn't get the three weeks rehabilitation cure in a clinic -due to her age - but only two weeks complex therapy in the geriatric ward in the same hospital.

She's paying the highest possible monthly fee (about $750/month, including mandatory insurance for invalid/senior care).
Same would happen, if she only paid $160 (that's the sum for those who don't have an own income) and/or a she was totally free insured as a family member.

I admit that such isn't inexpensive.

It's not only the salary of the doctors, but how pharmaceutical companies charge Americans for their products at much higher rates than they do foreign consumers, the high salaries of insurance company execs and administration and the dividends they must pay their stockholders to stay alive.

It's the administration costs within HMO's inparticular which totally involves the drive to make a profit and therefore drives health care prices up. Getting rid of the HMO's would drive the prices for group insurance up (which is why employers switched in the first place in the late 80's when HMO's were invented). I'm not convinced the government won't have personnel at the administration management level who are any worse than those in the private sector. I don't see any single payer universal health care happening now but a good start would be to offer a government group insurance program for those who are in low income brackets, self-employed or working for a small business who can't afford group insurance, not directly but through these employers who can prove they are unable to offer group plans, and if they are unemployed, the worker would remain a member of the group at no cost. Those small employers who are in this government group plan would deduct the premium at 50% for the worker and 50% for the employee. This would be a huge group -- larger than any corporation and should be able to support itself, so the cost should be quite low. Going into business costs money and I realize there are thousands of under-capitalized small businesses out there which means one of the first things to go is offering any kind of health insurance plan to their employees. Making it mandatory that all businesses have to either have private group plan insurance or the back-up government group plan is something that could make it through Congress and the Senate and with a sizable Republican participation vote. I don't believe the singler payer universal insurance the Obama Administration is brewing up now can pass even with the majorities in both houses.

There are some really ridiculous private drug discount plans out there who offer a card which is suppose to help the consumer. They're pretty much a sham as they really have little clout with the big drug companies. I've gone into the pharmacy go get prescribed drugs for my Mom the doctor did not realize was not on Medicare and they were as high as $400.00 for thirty day supply with no generic. Naturally, we called the doctor and another drug was prescribed which was on the Medicare list (available online and the insurer, AARP endorsed Secure Horizons which is really United Health Net mails out the list). The government has to offer the same drug plan in their group as Medicare which forces the drug companies to sell their product at a discount to the government. I'm sure that won't put more than a small dent in their unprecedented profits. This all depends on income brackets and how small the business actually is, and that's the most difficult part in establishing those levels. Offhand, I'd say less than $ 40,000.00 annual income, both for the employee, the small business corporation, partnership or proprietorship is fair.

I think I read someplace that private insurance companies spends about 13% on administration on top of the dividends they pay out to investors. I"m sure the cost for administration under a government program can be streamlined to save cost, because they won't need all those extra clerks approving each medical treatment under their plan.

Even then, just thinking off the top of my head (not always right, but pretty close), I believe there are other savings to be had under a universal health care system. Looking at the other side of the coin as we currently have health care, premiums are increasing faster than our inflation rate, and more companies and individuals are dropping out based on non-affordability. There is no way for us to sustain these increases for very much longer, and something must be done.

Any plan must be cost efficient and fraud proof to the extent the universal health plan won't suffer from what's happening in Massachusetts where people buy insurance for short periods only to care for their surgery or short-term illness. The fine should be heavy enough to discourage such behavior.

I've advocated for a universal health care for America; we are the last developed country without one. Our products and services will not only become more competitive in the world marketplace, but the majority will have some form of health insurance at lower cost.

This is an excellent statement of the sleazy practices of the health insurance industry, and the Republicans who are working to prevent Dems from getting credit for reform.


Health Insurer's Practices Revealed
In an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers last Friday, former health insurance executive Wendell Potter spoke out against the practices of health insurance companies, stating that "it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton [health care] plan." Potter said insurers seek to "drive down" costs by refusing to insure "unhealthy people," a tactic borne out by the fact that 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance. The "insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies," said Potter, the former head of Corporate Communications at health insurance giant CIGNA. Last month, Potter told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the industry, which once employed him regularly, drops sick policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

BACK TO THE CLINTON PLAYBOOK: In 1993, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol urged Republicans to block any health care proposal in order to prevent the Democrats from being seen as the "generous protector of the middle class." Potter says similar tactics are being used this time around. In the spring, a memo by Republican strategist Frank Luntz outlined the script for opponents of health care reform. Luntz argued that a politician had to first pretend to support it, but should then use phrases like "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," and "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That jargon is now routinely heard by Republicans arguing against reform. Republican consultant Alex Castellanos recently authored a memo that urged conservatives to co-opt the cause of "bringing down health care cost[s]" in an effort to "slow this sausage-making process down" and "defeat" it. Potter told Moyers that conservative politicians "want to believe that the free market system can and should work in this country, like it does in other industries. ... They parrot those comments, without really realizing what the real situation is."

HOW INSURERS VIEW THE PUBLIC OPTION: Critics have charged that Obama's proposal to enact a new public health insurance plan to compete directly with private insurers would lead to a "government takeover" of the health care system. Progressives have long argued that a public health insurance option is essential to controlling skyrocketing health care costs and achieving affordable coverage for all. Potter agrees, and argued that health care companies' "biggest concern" is that the U.S. might adopt "a broader program like our Medicare program" which "could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies." "The industry doesn't want to have any competitor," said Potter. "They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are." He added that "we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven." Potter said that he doesn't expect the public option to rid the health care system of financial incentive, but he does think it would keep insurers "honest" by offering a "standard benefit plan" that provides comprehensive coverage.

SMEARING MICHAEL MOORE: In his documentary SiCKO, filmmaker Michael Moore exposed the deplorable practices of the major health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in working to deny coverage to insured individuals. Armed with the deep pockets of the health care industry, a number of front groups -- like Freedom Works, the Galen Institute, and the Heritage Foundation -- lobbed personal insults against Moore (such as perpetuating the false idea that "healthy individuals" would "wind up subsidizing people like Moore") in an effort to maintain the status quo. During the interview with Moyers, Potter said that health insurance companies developed a concerted strategy to radicalize Moore by labeling him a "Hollywood entertainer" while pushing to discredit SiCKO as pure "fantasy." But Potter said that he thought Moore "hit the nail on the head with his movie," which advocated that the government-run systems of other western democracies produce better health care outcomes. The health insurance companies "don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth," Potter said. To push back on politicians, Potter said the industry routinely worked to defeat anyone who opposed their interests. The strategy included running ads, especially commercials in an elected official's home district, making contributions to a competitor, and using "lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, 'Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you." Potter said the plan "worked beautifully" with politicians mouthing the "talking points that had been circulated by the industry."

-- americanprogressaction.org

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/american-medical-association-endorses-house-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpblg

The AMA endorses the House health care bill, complete with robust public option. This actually is a big deal.

Cycloptichorn