IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I have probably sounded like I disagree with that. I don't. The questions continue to be: who pays for it, how much it costs, what it is going to deliver, and what health care is going to be available ten years or so down the road.

But you are suggesting that you can get something for nothing simply by using a form of words.

sometimes the simplest solution is the best. if we were to do national health, the simplest way to fund it would be each individual pays a percentage in taxes for that coverage. we all pay one to one. given, we would probably have to kick in a substantial chunk of seed money to get the thing rolling but it would require a smaller supplemental each year if we do it right.

if you already have for profit insurance and you are happy with what you are getting, the amount you have payed in taxes for national health becomes a tax credit on your yearly return.

as long as the ability to move freely between the national health and for profit insurance (including the ability to move freely between the various for profit companies) is included in the program's charter, i don't really see a down side for the american people.

Indeed most of the current distortions in the system are a direct result of existing Government programs (MEDICARE and MEDICAID) which already govern about one-third of all medical care in this country. We are being asked to accept more of the poison that caused the current disorder, and offered the absurd idea that it has become the cure.

As CNN reported, McConnell recently made a speech to the Senate referring to the "bureaucrats who run Canada's health care system" and using the Kingston General Hospital as an example of the horror of Canada's health care. KGH supposedly had waits of 340 days for knee replacement and 196 days for hip replacement. McConnell also fussed that Ontario's wait time for breast cancer surgery is three months. CNN did interview Dr. David Zelt, KGH's chief of staff, who pointed out the wait times are actually 91 days for hip replacement, 109 days for knees, and that these aren't the average wait times, but the time that nine out of 10 people have had the procedure. Many have them done much faster. For breast cancer surgery, the wait time at KGH is 23 days, across Ontario it's 34 days.

Both CNN and McConnell made a big deal out of Shona Holmes, an Ontario woman who claims she was forced by Ontario's health system to go to the United States for life-saving surgery for a brain tumour. She claims that in 2005 delays in access to treatment at home made it necessary to go to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona and pay $97,000 for her care.

I find it odd that we so complacently watch the ineptitude of government in managing things as diverse as the Levees protecting New Orleans; or the current rebates for "gas guzzlers" program; public schools; prisons; MEDICARE & MEDICAID; and all the rest --

I find it odd that we so complacently watch the ineptitude of government in managing things as diverse as the Levees protecting New Orleans;

or the current rebates for "gas guzzlers" program;

public schools;

prisons;

MEDICARE & MEDICAID;

and all the rest -- all while assuming these chronic features of government will simply disappear when it takes over health care and the associated huge component of our economy it comprises.

The truth is much of the increasing cost of medical care that is so ballyhooed by politicians is the result of advances in the care available. Medical care is much more expensive than it was in the 1960s. However, it is also much more effective and deals with things that couldn't be addressed at all then. The only way government will "cure" this issue is to stifle the advances themselves.

georgeob1 wrote:

I find it odd that we so complacently watch the ineptitude of government in managing things as diverse as the Levees protecting New Orleans; or the current rebates for "gas guzzlers" program; public schools; prisons; MEDICARE & MEDICAID; and all the rest --

Don't forget the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite its testosterone-toting TV commercials, the US military is really just another lazy, inefficient bureaucracy. Not saying Blackwater's free-market mercenaries are any better. But America's defense budget can definitely use some drastic downsizing.

MEDICARE & MEDICAID; and all the rest -- all while assuming these chronic features of government will simply disappear

You are correct that I do enjoy good health care coverage. I have private company provided insurance, MEDICARE, and Military coverage.

but our premiums are a direct function of the recent claims of our employees. Company costs are about 11% of our total salary costs - up from about 9% two years ago.

National Health Care Spending
In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent " two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2

* In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3

Medical care is much more expensive than it was in the 1960s.

Half of the insured population uses virtually no health care at all. The 80th percentile uses only $3,000 (2002 dollars, adjust a bit up for today). You have to hit the 95th percentile to get anywhere interesting, and even there you have only $11,487 in costs. It’s the 99th percentile, the people with over $35,000 of medical costs, who represent fully 22% of the entire nation’s medical costs. These people have chronic, expensive conditions. They are, to use a technical term, sick.

An individual adult insurance plan is roughly $7,000 (varies dramatically by age and somewhat by sex and location).

It should be fairly clear that the people who do not file insurance claims do not face rescission. The insurance companies will happily deposit their checks. Indeed, even for someone in the 95th percentile, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the insurance company to take the nuclear option of blowing up the policy. $11,487 in claims is less than two years’ premium; less than one if the individual has family coverage in the $12,000 price range. But that top one percent, the folks responsible for more than $35,000 of costs " sometimes far, far more " well there, ladies and gentlemen, is where the money comes in. Once an insurance company knows that Sally has breast cancer, it has already seen the goat; it knows it wants nothing to do with Sally.

If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases " the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier " then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.

Quote:

The truth is much of the increasing cost of medical care that is so ballyhooed by politicians is the result of advances in the care available. Medical care is much more expensive than it was in the 1960s. However, it is also much more effective and deals with things that couldn't be addressed at all then. The only way government will "cure" this issue is to stifle the advances themselves.

The truth is that another leading factor in the increasing cost of health care is the existence of insurance itself. Health care costs cannot rise beyond what the market will bear, and insurance allows the market to bear a very high price indeed.

There is also very little incentive for cheaper health care options to be developed. Why bother innovating procedures, techniques, products and business models which rely on cost savings, when a giant industry exists out there to support expensive treatments?

Cycloptichorn