Since the poor and elderly who subscribe to Medicaid and Medicare would fall under the "every citizen" category of coverage for the US couldn't we simply abolish both programs and replace them with Universal Health Care coverage for ALL Americans? It would be cheaper for the American tax payers AND reduce the size of government.
If we combine the savings from ending those programs with ending Corporate Welfare($92 billion in 2006 alone), it would save our country $292 billion per year. That's enough to fully fund public schools K-12, address world hunger, fully fund Head start programs and fund research and development of clean, renewable energy resources. We could save the American people even more money by allowing foreign doctors to practice medicine in the US if they can pass a test up to AMA standards. And we could save even MORE money by allowing REAL competition by letting pharamaceutical companies manufacture "copycat" or generic drugs. All of which would cost only $50 billion per year. And that's WITHOUT touching a cent from defense spending. Then we take the remaining $240 billion and split it 50/50. Half goes to repaying Social Security and the other half goes to tax cuts for the American people! Once S.S. is fully funded/repayed, 100% of those savings goes back to the American people! Who's with me?!!?
Universal Health Care provides coverage for every citizen.
Doctors are guaranteed payment.
Doctors can receive merit pay if they get their patients to lose weight, quit smoking, lower their cholesterol, etc.
There would be no HMOs to DENY LIFESAVING procedures.
There would be no HMOs to DENY Coverage to those with preexisting medical conditions.
There would be no more co-pays for doctors visits or prescription drugs.
The United States spends more on Health Care than countries that have Universal Health Care and those countries cover EVERY citizen. I like the way your thinking and if implemented I believe it would work, but unfortunately there are some people that don't see that when the poor do better, we all do better.
Ben is correct, a perfect society is only out of reach because of the Human elements involved. I don't know if time will ever change that, but I'm not going quit trying in the meantime.
Imagine if you were on a tall building looking down into an area with a bunch of animals (Pick your favorite) and those animals had a society like the human race.....some were killing each other, some were stealing from others, some had elaborate homes while others slept out in the elements. Some had other animals that helped them when they were sick and some were just left to die. Some were fat from having so much and just eating it and throwing away what they didn't eat while some of the animals starved to death....... I would think that any reasonable person watching those animals would conclude that this was not natural and an abberation of nature. Typical liberal. You use two programs with out of control spending...programs created by liberals...and suggest that it would save even more money by having the government take control of the entire health care system...since these two programs are so expensive anyway. LOL.
Edit: The difference between tax breaks for businesses (what you call "corporate welfare") and welfare: businesses actually produce something and create jobs for people...welfare pays people to do nothing. BTW, businesses would be happy not to have any tax incentives, because all a tax incentive is is a government manipulation of business to do something it wouldn't otherwise do.
edit 2: I don't want America divided. I want everyone on the same page: if you want something in this country (to include health insurance), make money and pay for it yourself, don't rob your neighbor by electing democrats. Nice dream ...it sounds good when you say it but you know what also sounds great communism but it never works. In communism everyone gets an education free health care an food an housing every thing is for the fellow man BUT it docent really work that perfectly... First, why do you think you could fiund universial health care for 100 billion dollars ?
Thats only $333.00 per person, per year.
No way can you fund health insurance for $333 a year.
Also, Medicaid funding if 183 billion a year now.
Medicare funding is 373 billion a year now.
Universial health care coverage will cost a minimum of one trillion a year, probally alot more.
get your basic facts straight, then get back to us. Your numbers really don't add up.
I think the $100bn you are quoting is over and above what medicare/aid is already costing us.
Will check my facts and get back to you. IF Universal Health Care (or socialized medicine) worked, then why are ALL of the systems rationing care, relying on private segments, and still going bankrupt?
The NHS, the oldest system, is in Britain:
"鈥淪taff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (拢1.07bn for 2005-2006)鈥?(Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/...
In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state 鈥渕ore than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.鈥?Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: 鈥溾€橰ationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.鈥欌€?(Moss, 鈥淣HS rationing is 鈥榥ecessary evil,鈥?says doctors,鈥?26 June 2007).
"Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.
...
In 1999, Richard F. Davies, MD, described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, 71 patients died before surgery and another "121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery;" 44 left Ontario and had their CABG elsewhere, such as in the USA. In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line.
One of the reasons Canadians are slow to acknowledge the problems with their system is that general practitioners have been relatively easy to access and reasonably efficient at providing everyday services for common complaints, such as colds, sprains, aches and pains.
As time passes, however, more and more Canadians are confronted by the halting quality of their system when they face complex and expensive medical problems. They often cannot get timely or appropriate care for bone fractures, prompt treatment for cancer, or non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements. Their doctors complain that they are unable to help them and the government pleads shortage of funds.
...
Canadian physician frustration with their inability to provide quality and timely care is resulting in a brain drain. According to one poll, one in three Canadian doctors is considering leaving the country. A doctor shortage looms, as the nation falls 500 doctors a year short of the 2,500 new physicians it needs to add each year to meet national health needs, according to Sally Pipes, a policy expert formerly with the Canadian Fraser Institute.
Another casualty of the lengthy waiting periods is Canada's much-vaunted equal access to medical treatment. Even though medical emergencies allow some people to jump ahead in the waiting line 鈥?making others wait longer 鈥?a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal found that more than 90 percent of heart specialists had "been involved in the care of a patient who received preferential access" to cardiac care based on non-medical reasons including the patient's social standing or personal connections with the treating physician."
Jewish World Review June 11, 2004 written by Dr. Cihak
AND
"The biggest Canadian fiscal drain comes from the single-payer medical system. "Current model of health-care delivery leading us down the path to financial ruin," states the lead editorial in the Calgary Sun. Health-care costs would consume 50% of Alberta's budget by 2016 (according to the Fraser Institute) or 2017 (according to Aon Consulting, a firm hired by the Alberta government). Health care would devour 100% of the provincial budget by 2030, if present trends continue.
...
An estimated 90,000 Canadians sought medical care outside their country in 2005. The cry "no two-tiered system" could be replaced by "set our patients free," stated a lead editorial (National Post 9/18/06)."
Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2006 by Dr. Glueck
So why no total collapse yet? Because 鈥渋llegal, for-profit health-service centers鈥?have 鈥減roliferated鈥?in Canada and are so accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association (鈥淚ndividual Freedom vs. Government Control,鈥?1 August 2007, nationalreview.com).
Japan doesn't fare any better:
"According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they鹿ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000. (Glueck, 鈥淔ar East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care,鈥?26 January 2007, jewishworldreview.com)
Sweden:
A May 2007 article the National Center for Public Policy Research ran called 鈥淪weden鈥檚 Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations鈥?(Hogberg, nationalcenter.org) indicates that this government with good GDP ($31,600) and relatively low unemployment (5.6 percent) had a single-payer system for much of the 20th century. They covered basically all health care costs and as a result, had to ration health care, and found themselves with waiting lists for both surgeries and doctor visits. In the 1990s, there was a move toward semi-privatization which reduced those problems, but they have re-emerged. In that author鈥檚, view, the reforms were not permitted to work as they were not full-on free market ones.
The much lauded French system raises some questions as well. From their Embassy site (ambafrance-us.org) they state that 96 percent of the population receives free or 100 percent reimbursed health care. They state the system is part of their Social Security and is funded from worker鈥檚 salaries (60 percent), 鈥渋ndirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income, including retirement pensions and capital revenues.鈥?They state that it appears that health insurance pays less to its doctors in France than in other European countries, but that 80 percent of the public have supplemental health insurance, typically from their employers. If they鈥檙e providing so well for the needs of the public, why is there a need for 鈥渟upplemental鈥?health insurance for the majority of the public and what about the additional cost that imposes? The site states that the poorest have free universal health care, funded by taxes. Long-term illness sufferers are to be reimbursed for their treatments. They do have private clinics, as well as public hospitals, and not-for-profit healthcare. In fact, 鈥減rivate medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases.鈥?
Private insurance, which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) site said in a 2004 report, was held by 92 percent of the French, helps to cover both vision and dental care which are not well covered under the government system. 鈥淭he public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.鈥?The government is interested in having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller & Couffinhall, 鈥淧rivate Health Insurance in France,鈥?2004, oecd.org).
In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?S...
Clearly, government run health care does NOT work anywhere it is tried. Further support for the problems in the US:
Oregon's at least honest about the FACT that ALL government health care IS RATIONED care:
"But the real-life story of 18-year-old Brandy Stroeder may come to embody a harsher truth: namely, that even as we perfect more and more advanced medical procedures, not everyone is going to have access to them. And, as Americans struggle to come up with an equitable health care system, that even the best-intentioned system can seem heartless when forced to balance the good of thousands against an individual's suffering.
The story began last fall when doctors told Brandy, who lives with her single mother in a weather-beaten farmhouse about an hour south of Portland, Ore., that she was likely to die within a year unless she got a simultaneous lung-liver transplant, an operation that has been performed fewer than a dozen times in the United States.
Under Oregon's unique Medicaid system, which openly rations healthcare in order to provide basic care to as broad a population as possible, Brandy was eligible for a liver transplant or a lung transplant, but not both. In January, and again after a review in May, the state-run health plan said no. There wasn't enough data to show the $250,000 procedure was worthwhile, the health plan's administrators said, and the plan didn't cover experiments.
But Brandy wouldn't take no for an answer. A tough, determined young woman who had managed to work part-time at a photo studio, baby-sit her boss's children, coach the high school football team and maintain a 3.2 grade point average between numerous and prolonged bouts in the hospital, Brandy wasn't about to give up her life without a fight. She sued the state of Oregon, charging that it was making a flawed moral choice in refusing to save her life. Since then her caustic, articulate criticisms of the Oregon system have given a vivid sense of the obstacles any universal healthcare plan for the nation would face.
"They'll pay for an alcoholic to get a liver transplant because they've been drinking all their life," she says, sitting with her mother at a rickety picnic table under a cherry tree by her front door. "They'll pay for a heroin addict to get cured, to help someone kick the cigarette habit. Those are things people do to themselves. If you put it to a vote the people would say pay for some girl's operation instead of some alcoholic's liver transplant or some crack head's needles. I just think it isn't very fair.'"
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/...
Texas has also been the boldest in supporting the growing-in-popularity "futile care theory":
"Texas, however, has become ground zero for futile-care theory thanks to a draconian state law passed in 1999 鈥?of dubious constitutionality, some believe 鈥?that explicitly permits a hospital ethics committee to refuse wanted life-sustaining care. Under the Texas Health and Safety Code, if the physician disagrees with a patient's decision to receive treatment, he or she can take it to the hospital ethics committee. A committee hearing is then scheduled, all interested parties explain their positions, and the members deliberate in private.
If the committee decides to refuse treatment, the patient and family receive a written notice. At that point, the patient/family has a mere ten days to find another hospital willing to provide the care, after which, according to the statute, "the physician and health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment."
Since the patients threatened with death by ethics committee are often the most expensive to care for, it will often be difficult for families to find other institutions willing to accept a transfer. But the futility deck may be especially stacked against Houston patients. Many city hospitals participate in the "Houston City-Wide Guidelines on Medical Futility," raising the suspicion that participating hospitals will not contradict each other's futility decrees.
If so, this would mean that patients seeking refuge from forced treatment termination will have to be transported to distant cities, as has already occurred in a few futile-care cases, perhaps even out of state. Illustrating the level of hardball some hospitals play against patients and families, the Clarke family's lawyer Jerri Ward told me that St. Luke's agreed to pay the $14,806 transportation costs to transfer Clarke to a hospital in Illinois 鈥?more than 1,000 miles away 鈥?if the decision to transfer is made on Thursday (4/27). If the family doesn't decide until Friday, the hospital will pay only one-half of the cost of transportation. Thereafter, it would pay nothing."
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smi...
So, let's look at what DOES work: the free market. We do NOT have a free market right now--the federal and state governments horrendous attempts at managing care AND the stranglehold a few large insurers have on insurance are THE cause of the problems we have. When doctors say NO to the domination of third-party payers, things get better.
Read:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbe...
A doctor owned and run hospital that sees everyone gets care, no matter what happens to the bottom line.
http://www.simplecare.com/ a doctor-driven group where reasonable rates are charged.
Note you can go to a walk-in clinic at Wal-Mart or CVS or the like in many cities and get many of the most typical reasons for seeing a doc addressed for under $100.
The price of LASIK has DROPPED dramatically over a decade. Plastic surgery is CHEAP. Compare a major procedure like a tummy tuck with the bill an uninsured patient will get for a medically necessary appendectomy WITHOUT complications.
So what is a person who has done his research supposed to do to address this mess? There IS an answer and it does START with a government-offered health insurance plan BECAUSE millions are on government plans NOW and we can't dump them overnight. The author wants it transitioned to private insurance over about 30 years--time enough to work out the kinks so the most vulnerable don't pay the price.
Elements of this system include:
CATASTROPHIC care coverage (all anyone NEEDS--no reason why any time someone feels like visiting the doc his neighbor should pay). That coverage would include one PHYSICAL per year with follow-up visit because that IS market-sense. Prevention is ALWAYS cheaper as well as more moral. Also one ER visit per year IF needed (how to stop ER abuse is addressed in the book).
The coverage would be AFFORDABLE:
sliding-fee scale is used AND there is a limit to the out-of-pocket expenses.
It is a BETTER deal than current Medicare and other plans because:
NO "donut hole"--if a medicine is NECESSARY, such as chemo drugs, it's covered--but no ED or fertility coverage. People can pay out of pocket for the drugs which will still exist.
NO ridiculous low caps on NECESSARY procedures which is the NORM now so that a plan can claim they "cover" a procedure and foist $50K or so onto the patient's back. Who has that much laying around?
How to fund this? It IS explained in the plan and resolves another taxpayer abuse. It removes employers from the problem of providing insurance and it doesn't increase taxes on people either.
The PDF (NOT the blurb) has the plan and the book addresses many of the problems in the current system and has ideas on how to resolve them, including bringing prescription med prices down under this plan.
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
ALL existing plans may still exist. All hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. exist. No one is FORCED to sign on to the plan, but if they rack up a bill without ANY insurance and can't pay, then they do pay into the plan to help defray the costs they gambled they would NOT have and did. In other words, absolutely no more "free lunch" or attempt at one.
Lobbyists will hate this--gone would be the multimillion bonuses and such to the CEOs of the handful of large insurers. Doctors, nurses, and other actual health PROVIDERS would find their education expenses reduced under the full plan of the book. A person would have to have the smarts, the dedication, and the stamina to make it through and get licensed on HIS OWN DIME, but he'd be able to get debt relief after he's made it through because right now we waste who knows how much subsidizing junk like bachelors in Women's Studies when we should be creating more slots and more schools for physicians, nurses, etc. which we have a NEED for and SHORTAGE of. Ultimately higher ed's free ride on the taxpayer dime must also end, but again, being realistic, the author works with what is and explains how to get where we need to go via a transitional period. Your figures are wrong. Universal healthcare will cost more than medicare. Regarding the poster above who is commenting about the NHS, you have no clue. While universal health care will cost more than medicare, if people pay money in taxation to that, they will find that as money is going to health care, and not being taken away in profits, that value for money will improve.
I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care... Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are worse than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.
In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.
I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2... |
