Health care overhaul cost may reach $1.5 trillion

How much do you currently pay for health insurance?

But not on the Middle Class Com Sen...We are safe from seeing our taxes go up...Right? He made that promise and dag it all he has stuck to all those promises he made before getting elected...Right?

The Germany system.....

If anyone is smart, they will review the healthcare systems around the world. The German system is perfect for the political climate in he US. Private providers and private insurers. People pay their way independent of their job and those who are not able to buy the insurance get it subsidized by the government.

I pay $390 a month for a family of 5. That is health, eye care, and a very limited dental plan.

I pay $390 a month for a family of 5. That is health, eye care, and a very limited dental plan.

At that price you either have an employer provided plan or an extremely high deductable. Either way you are paying more than that base price. If you employer is convering some of the cost it is at the expense of higher pay, and if it is a high deductable you are probably only covered for catastrophic costs which means you are paying double for standard services than what a health insurance company pays for the same service. Either way, I would say it is not a good deal and costs more because of the for profit health insurance industry.

But not on the Middle Class Com Sen...We are safe from seeing our taxes go up...Right? He made that promise and dag it all he has stuck to all those promises he made before getting elected...Right?

You're paying for health insurance now. It's never going to be free. It should however, not be priced for a middle man to profit from it.

I assume it is either an employer contributed plan or you are not getting covered preventative care. Most individually insured plans for families are around $800.

My employer pays 410 a month for my individual health insurance and it manages to dodge half of every medical expense with some loop hole. When a simple checkup costs $300 out of pocket, and you get three months of little double talking bills it makes me not want to go to the doctor even if I need to. It's not only the cost it's the retarded run around the insurance company and care providers put you through.

I would rather this money go strait to the government if I could have the peace of mind people in France have with their health coverage. As it is corporate insurance and corporate care providers are making record profits every year and our society is loosing in the bargain.

Sounds like Super O just signed us up for Subprime. We want it but can't afford it.

This staggering figure is to pay the cost of all of the now Uninsured! This is not the cost to pay for All Americans. So add it up people if you are a tax payer and also pay for your health insurance( I pay about $1,000 per month) you will now be paying for yourself and all of the uninsured! So get ready for a huge tax increase!

This staggering figure is to pay the cost of all of the now Uninsured! This is not the cost to pay for All Americans. So add it up people if you are a tax payer and also pay for your health insurance( I pay about $1,000 per month) you will now be paying for yourself and all of the uninsured! So get ready for a huge tax increase!

You are already paying for the uninsured in the least efficient way. Emergency rooms. With single payer health insurance that $1000 a month could be significantly reduced.

Your solution is to ignore the problem?

Right, MoK, if you use the health care system you are paying the cost of those who are unable to afford routine care and who use the ER for their routine care or forgo routine care and end up in the ER more ill and requiring hospital admission. The ER is the most expensive care available and to keep the doors open it will steadily become more expensive. Ignoring the problem and thinking that "I've got mine" will not make the problem go away. Health care costs are already increasing at runaway rates.

You're paying for health insurance now. It's never going to be free. It should however, not be priced for a middle man to profit from it.

Of course it will never be free. Somebody has to pay that bill whether it's through employer-based plans or government taxes. But the middlemen aren't being removed from the equation. And Obama campaigned to LOWER healthcare costs up to $2500 for the typical family, and that's certainly not going to happen with this plan.

Man of Knowledge and Behind my Screen are doing a good job on this central issue. So all I'll say is that there needs to be creative, transformative changes in the health care system in this country rather than just pumping trillions into the joke of a system that we have now. I voted for Obama because I believe that he's looking for creative solutions and he isn't going to be a slave to the special interests that rule the medical swindle in this country. I want to see the creative solutions to go along with the pricetag.

Of course it will never be free. Somebody has to pay that bill whether it's through employer-based plans or government taxes. But the middlemen aren't being removed from the equation. And Obama campaigned to LOWER healthcare costs up to $2500 for the typical family, and that's certainly not going to happen with this plan.

True, Obama's current plan does not remove the middlemen, I don't like the current plans although they cannot possibly be worse than the status quo.

The middlemen have a ton of our money, and they are throwing it around, so it will be tough but we can get rid of them if the majority favors it. I will keep pushing to get rid of them.

Look to Europe to see how much they pay in taxes for healthcare.

Of course it will never be free. Somebody has to pay that bill whether it's through employer-based plans or government taxes.

One of the problems is with the government guaranteeing health care, it will be hard for the government to keep prices down. Think of it like banks with federal guarantees. Has that been in the news lately?

ComSen,

Look to Germany.

Watch the PBS Frontline Special "Sick around the world". Look at Germany and Switzerland. Those systems are perfect for the US, and the German system uses complete private insurers and hospitals and doctors. It costs them less per person, and the efficacy of their system is much higher than ours.

That's exactly what I was thinking after I finished reading the article. I'm trying to figure out why American citizens health is for profit. What kind of person or entity profits off of someones health? Why is this right? Why does the American people allow this? What happened to community?

bingo.

Universal systems in Europe cost less than half of the 2.2 trillion we pay ANNUALLY.

If we went to a system simmilar to Germany or Switzerland, the economy and the tax payers would save trillions over 10 years.

You are nuts insurance companies are in business to make money just like every other business. What world do you live in.

You are nuts insurance companies are in business to make money just like every other business. What world do you live in.

Precisely, and their interest is NOT in the public interest. That is why we should get rid of them.

I just have a question - When has anything run by the government not been a huge, convoluted mess (tax system anyone?). Now, as anyone who has ever had a major catastrophe or incident knows, the health care system is already a nightmare of paperwork, refusals, double billing, etc. And you're trying to tell me that adding GOVERNMENT into the mix is going to help anything?? Talk about delusional.

MoK,

And replace them with what exactly? Another government bureaucracy? Another government agency that will generate more mind numbing forms to put onto of the already huge pile of mind numbing forms provided for me ever time I visit the doctor. I agree something must be done about the health care problem. But government control is almost never the way. Maybe as said above subsidies to those that have policies independent of work or family, but not government control. Universal Health Care would be a glorious thing, unfortunately to pay for everyone living in the US I would basically have to surrender my pay check at the end of the week would I not. If we spend $2,400,000,000,000 to cover give or take the 50 or so million uninsured and there are 300 million people in the country. Then to cover everyone we would have to spend 14,400,000,000,000 a year. The number alone makes even the most liberal budgets seem conservative. That number of course would fluctuate to reflect cost upgrading the medical systems, absorbing private medical records and hiring thousands of people to process the millions of claims filed a year.

I don't have an anwer that would work either so I will shut up. Anyone got an answer? I swear if you tell us I will give a Nobel Prize.

Which is why I don't like Obama's plans on anything. Nothing is ever clear--where's the transparency? Where are the numbers? Where's the accountability?

You know, I'm all for people working and having jobs. But I haven't had kids yet because I don't feel successful enough to afford them. Why should I and every hard working taxpayer work and pay into a system (like we have done with Social Security for eons--and believe me, I don't hold any illusions of seeing my money ever!) so that others who otherwise can't afford it are able to obtain healthcare? Can you say socialist?

Thanks, but no thanks. I work hard. I expect my money to work hard for me, too--and not for someone else to benefit. If that makes me selfish and a b_itch, then so be it.

thinking aloud

The whole purpose of a single payer system is to simplify adminsitration of the system not make it more complicated. Every hospital and physician currently has dozens of insurance companies to deal with, each with different policies, procedures and payment schedules. The cost of dealing with all those different entities is great, and it gets passed on to you.

You are already paying for all these uninsured people you just choose to ignore it. A single insurance provider saves money. The knee jerk reaction that all things government is bad has no basis in fact, it's just a popular right wing talking point. Some things need government coordination to be effective.

Lkessler

Whether you like it or not a big part of your current tax burden is to provide health care for the elderly, chronically ill and the poor since health insurance companies refuse to cover them. This country is not about the simply ignore these people. You will pay for their health care whether you like it or not. Even the right wingers don't advocate letting these people suffer and die without care.

You are bleeding money into a huge money sucking machine whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. The purpose of health care reform is to make the machine more efficient and thus lower the cost to everyone. Single payer insurance is the best method to do that.

d berger....

Try getting some info before you say something silly.

For profit care was not legal in the US until Nixon created the HMO system. Until that time, No-For-Profit insurers were all that existed.

The whole purpose of a single payer system is to simplify adminsitration of the system not make it more complicated. Every hospital and physician currently has dozens of insurance companies to deal with, each with different policies, procedures and payment schedules. The cost of dealing with all those different entities is great, and it gets passed on to you.

As someone who has worked for a government contractor (which is what medical facilities will become), I can assure you that your "one provider" ideal does not make it more streamlined. If anything, there is more beaurocracy involved, because of the inefficiency of the federal government to perform a job it was never created to do.

I would bet my life that numerous government agencies will be formed, thousands of civil service jobs will suddenly be required to handle the paperwork, subcommittees on Capitol Hill will be created to "oversee" the running of the healthcare system, and it will become mired in a political cesspool just like most things the government has taken over (i.e. social security)

Other than the Social Security Administration what other agencies and civil servants administer Social Security. The only political cesspool I'm aware of regarding social security is whether or not to continue it. In my experience they are reasonably efficient in adminstering the plan.

Of course it will require thousands of civil servants it is a huge task.

I'm trying to figure out why American citizens health is for profit. What kind of person or entity profits off of someones health? Why is this right? Why does the American people allow this? What happened to community?

So in your opinion, should doctors make a profit? Or should their work be considered "charity"? I realize you were probably referring to the insurance industry, but it's a slippery slope.

The only political cesspool I'm aware of regarding social security is whether or not to continue it. In my experience they are reasonably efficient in adminstering the plan.

If they were even somewhat "reasonably efficient", they wouldn't be broke.

It happens that social security payments go into the general treasury and are used for a lot of other things besides social security. We are in deficit spending mode so basically all current payments first pay out to the current recipients and the remainder goes to pay for other things. However, that is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that the baby boomers are reaching retirement age and the current work force doesn't pay in enough to cover their retirement once all of them retire.

However, we are not currently broke. The problem is the baby boomers are reaching retirement age and the current work force doesn't pay in enough to cover their retirement once all of them retire.

Kinda like a pyramid scheme, huh? Perhaps we should put Madoff in charge of healthcare.

When you pay into a system your entire life, assuming it will take care of you, and then you find out that, in all likelihood, it will disappear before you get it back, I call that "broke"

MoK,

Look at every federal organization. Even the DoD. Do you have any idea how long it takes for the federal government to procure new military equipment? The F-22 design was completed by '99 it only entered production last year. To look at our "intelligence" services consider the fact that the NSA, CIA, and NIO all have separate million dollar satellites to preform the same function and of course these organizations never talk to each other. Another layer of paper pushers tries to handle that. Every level of federal government is bogged down by committees, subdivisions of subdivisions, and the ever present red tape of regulations that seem to serve only to employ people to enforce them. Yes UHC would be very nice, but if the only solution is to create a government bureaucracy to run it then god help us(though it may be to late for that).

I understand your point. There is great waste in the government. That is a separate issue and not universal across all federal departments.

In the case of health insurance we already have most of what is needed in place. It's called Medicare. It just needs to be expanded to cover everyone and reprogrammed not to deal with private health insurers. Actually folding Medicare, Medicaid and VA health care budgets into a single entity contributes significantly to the expected cost savings that can be realized by a single health insurance payer.

No other plan proposes getting rid of those departments. We are saddled with those plans no matter what. For profit health insurance will never cover the elderly, arguably the folks who need coverage the most.

I say let's approach it another way. It can be done right.

Man of Knowledge wrote: whether you like it or not a big part of your current tax burden is to provide health care for the elderly, chronically ill and the poor since health insurance companies refuse to cover them. This country is not about the simply ignore these people. You will pay for their health care whether you like it or not. Even the right wingers don't advocate letting these people suffer and die without care.

Well, forgive me, but charity is best left to the philanthropists. When I have enough money to throw into the wind, I"ll be happy to spend a lot of it towards philanthropic efforts.

Fedupwithliberals,

No-for-profit healthcare is not about doctors making money. That statement right there shows you have no idea what "not for profit" actually means.

I work for a not-for-profit hospital. We are privately owned, have a governing board of directors, worry about our credit rating, cash on hand, etc. The difference is that we do not issue stock, we can not designate revenue for profit, we have to designate revenue above costs to go back into the system. We buy properties to expand our business, we purchase new equipment to stay competitive, we invest in renovations to keep our facilities up-to-date, we invest in recruiting doctors, and we pay our doctors very well. We have executives that get very good pay packages.

What it comes down to, Our mandate is to providing the best health care possible, NOT making the most profit possible. Stock issuing companies and even untraded companies with a board of investors need to maximize profit or the company gets sued by its stock holders.

In health care, maximizing profits, especially on the insurance side, almost always is in conflict with providing the best and most appropriate care to patients. This is why healthcare should not be a for profit venture because we end up sacrificing patient care for profit.

MoK,

can you name one federal department that runs without waste and with efficiency?

That depends on what you mean by without waste and with efficiency. There is a great deal of argument about how to measure waste and efficiency and whether there is a fair way to compare it to a business since government and businesses operate in different ways.

If you calculate the administrative cost of Medicare based on the amount paid out it comes out to roughly 5 percent of cost. Private health insurers are in the range of 15 to 25 percent. But many people say there are hidden costs such as fraud enforcement which is handled by the justice department. Businesses count taxes as an administrative cost but the government pays no taxes. There doen't seem to be a metric people can agree on.

Overall most users of Medicare would say it works well. There is no reason to think that if it expanded to cover everyone it would stop working well. After all right now there is a very complicated qualification process that would be vastly simplified if a social security number was all that was necessary to qualify. In addition Medicaid and the VA could be incorporated into it and there would be more savings on administrative costs.

There have been many studies looking at the cost of health care and what could bring that down and there is a lot of evidence that an expanded Medicare system i.e. single payer health insurance is the best method to control cost.

People hate change. If they are getting by now they don't want that to change but they often can't see the big picture of the terrible price we are paying for our current system because those costs are spread out among federal, state, local taxes, employer insurance, cost of goods and services with many costs that aren't readliy apparent.

People look at the problems other systems have and say "we don't want that" meanwhile they are getting royally screwed by their fear of change.

No matter how inefficient a government system is, it doesn't have the inherent conflict of interest that for profit insurance has. And it is more manageable than 50 states adminsitering several hundred insurance companies all with different laws, different policies and different modes of operation.

Overall most users of Medicare would say it works well. There is no reason to think that if it expanded to cover everyone it would stop working well.

Medicare is a terrible example of an efficient government department.

The Washington Post reports that Medicare's internal auditing systems are designed to detect unorthodox medical treatment and over billing. Out and out fraud? Not so much. The Post's experts estimate that criminals bilk the system out of more than $60 billion per year. A single Florida woman bilked the system out of $105 million, working from home on her laptop.

Medicare fraud tops $60 billion per year

fraud is not equal to efficency.

Fraud happens all over the place, it happens at private insurance companies as well.

fraud is not equal to efficency.

When $60 billion/yr doesn't reach its intended targets (whether it's through fraud or incompetence or any other method), that's not an efficient program.

This demonstrates my point about what one considers efficient or not. You will note in my post I mentioned that fraud detection is not actually HHS's responsibility it is the Justice Department's responsibility. Local governments play a role as well.

There are also arguments that if Medicare had access to all the data including recipients, doctors, facilities, service providers, equipment providers they could develop lists of approved vendors and programmed detection algorithms like the IRS uses to detect tax cheats and eliminate a lot of the fraud.

At least they err on the side of covering their recipients rather than having staff dedicated to not paying.

It comes down to if you like the current system your going to find reasons not to change. Personally I don't like it. We as citizens pay double what other country's do and get worse service. One in three bankruptcies are due to medical costs and that is for people who are insured. I think that is wrong.

I despise for profit health insurance companies. I intend to do my best to put them out of business.

This demonstrates my point about what one considers efficient or not. You will note in my post I mentioned that fraud detection is not actually HHS's responsibility it is the Justice Department's responsibility. Local governments play a role as well.

Well, sure, if you're going to look at parts of the program, you will find good things. If you look at Medicare overall, you're going to find a very inefficient program.

There are also arguments that if Medicare had access to all the data including recipients, doctors, facilities, service providers, equipment providers they could develop lists of approved vendors and programmed detection algorithms like the IRS uses to detect tax cheats and eliminate a lot of the fraud.

The problem is that too little money is spent on anti-fraud measures and that the Medicare program can (and is) easily scammed by individuals and groups alike.

It comes down to if you like the current system your going to find reasons not to change. Personally I don't like it. We as citizens pay double what other country's do and get worse service. One in three bankruptcies are due to medical costs and that is for people who are insured. I think that is wrong.

The current system isn't working now and while I support a national healthcare plan, I'd really like to see a lot more details, especially on how to pay for this plan.

Tacitus is right. A for profit money hungry insurance company sends more to ensure there is no fraud than the government. A company has to ensure that it can survive and fraud can kill it so is aggressively hunted. While in the government apparently one women can steel over a hundred million dollars and no one notices in the sea of accounts and bureaucrats.

Also the Justice Department is not responsible for watching over HHS every move. They have better things to do than second the work of another institution to lazy to checks its own records!

A for profit health insurance company has a contract with every recipient. They have no more that a couple of million recipients and that is the biggest company. Medicare currently has around 43 million recipients.

There is plenty of room for improvement, but there is no private company that comes close to doing what they do. The Medicare/Medicaid budget is currently roughly ninenteen percent of the entire federal budget. Four percent of GDP. That is a huge amount of money. Implementing the kind of detailed checks on every claim you suggest would drive up the cost even further. Perhaps more than could be saved.

Those who oppose a single payer national heath plan never address what to do about Medicare and Medicaid. They always say things like "I don't want the government involved in health care." But the governement is involved big time, and no one is suggesting eliminating these programs. Until these folks make a single constructive suggestion on what to do about the escalating cost of Medicare and Medicaid their arguments are very hollow in my mind. Doing nothing about it is like ignoring a bleeding artery. If something isn't done the prognosis for the patient is pretty dim.

Uhh... a not-for-profit entity uses just as much resources to ensure there is no fraud. The difference is that the Not-For-Profit follows it mission where as a for-profit must put profits above mission.

People really need to educate themselves. For-Profit health care is NOT a system that has the best wishes of the patients at hand and unless you have a health care system with that goal, it will remain ineffective.

Easy and fair way to measure efficency, Bang-for-Buck.

The us system has the worst efficency in the entire industrialized world by that standard.

MoK,

I have never suggested that we do nothing only that we do not know what to do. The answer is never simple and would require a complete compare and contrast of every system around to come up with the best. Until that is done and a reasonable solution is suggested then throwing money at the problem will not work.

That is an excellent point, and true, however, this problem has been going on for 20 years and we're still no closer to making any sensible changes. Analysis is always part political and part significant. Other systems have been studied to death. None of them are perfect, and for the most part don't exactly apply to the situation in the U.S.

Voters usually follow the leaders of whatever line of political thought they adhere to.

Political leaders tend to be beholden to big money interests more than their constituents.

We're bleeding (I'm sure bleeding) and no one knows where to put the tourniquet and no one wants to put it in the wrong place so the patient just continues to bleed.

I personally think a single payer system is the best approach, but I also see that right now, it is an unlikely prospect. I would settle for just getting employers out of the health care business, but that is an unlikely prospect as well. I would settle for just making the insurance companies non-profit, but that is an unlikely prospect. The way I see it the best we can do is improve efficiency of the overall system to get some savings there. I think that is the administration's current approach.

I don't like it. It doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured and under insured, and it doesn't address the cost of Medicare and Medicaid the two big albatrosses hanging around the country's neck.

Anything to slow down the bleeding is better than the nothing we have been doing. In the mean time I'm going to keep pushing the idea of single payer insurance. Most people don't even understand what it is.

YES, no matter what the "man of knowledge" says, EVERY ONES taxes will go up sooner rather than later GUARANTEED.

I say again. How much do you pay for health insurance now. Taxes or not, you are paying more for your health care here than people in any other G-20 country in the world and getting worse service. That includes Canada.

A third of the current national budget goes to pay health care for the people for profit health insurers refuse to cover. That cost, and all other costs, could be significantly reduced by a single payer health insurance system.

Lets hear your solution.

My solution is to let me do what I want with my money. If I want to get private health insurance, go me. If I want to find an employer that offers health insurance as a benefit, go me. If I want to donate money to charities/hospitals/ or other groups that assist those without health care... go me. Yes, there are a lot of "me"s and "I"s in there, but its my money. Why do I want to hand it over to an entity that has repeatedly shown that a large chunk of the funds gets lost in the paperwork? Or, worse yet, borrows so strongly against the future that when the future arrives they realize there are not enough funds for everyone (Social Security).

Give me a group that I trust to handle Universal Health Care and a plan where the dollars add up, and I might reconsider the offer. Until then, forgive me if I hold onto the pennies that are barely making my own ends meet.

Thank you Sidona!

Couldn't have said better myself. Anything the Government gets their hands on tends to get A WHOLE LOT WORSE. They don't use common sense. They just want to stay in power.

In the Government's defense: Its hard to use common sense when you have no idea what the normal citizen's day to day life looks like. The same problem crops up in business. When management doesn't know what the sales floor looks like it becomes extremely hard to make company-wide decisions for teh sales team that make sense and increase profit.

The government already has its hands on your money and it spends billions on an inefficient and cost escalating health care system. If you think that doing nothing is saving you money, you are dreaming. One third of every penny of taxes you pay go to health care costs and you don't receive any benefit unless you are old, disabled or poor. In addition part of the cost of most of the things you buy have employer based healthcare costs rolled into it. You are paying coming and going right now.

In addition to that if your employer provides health insurance plan it does so at the cost of paying you more, and it ties you to that employer in a way that wages cannot.

In addition to that the labor cost of providing health care to employees is a major reason companies are moving their operations overseas where this burden doesn't exist.

In addition to that, the labor cost makes products in America less competitive in price to their foreign counterparts.

In addition to that if your employer provides health insurance plan it does so at the cost of paying you more, and it ties you to that employer in a way that wages cannot.

You make a good point, but I don't believe that handing control over to the government is the right choice. Bush's plan of making insurance "portable" (i.e. you're able to take it from job to job, state to state) made a lot more sense. That would bring competition to the market, which would drive down prices. If I could pay an affordable premium every month, and knew I could keep it even when changing jobs, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Putting caps on malpractice awards, moderninzing and computerizing medical records, and competition in the market would all serve to bring down medical care costs, with little additional cost to the taxpayers. The current system is broken, but it can be fixed without a massive government takeover.

"If you think that doing nothing is saving you money, you are dreaming. One third of every penny of taxes you pay go to health care costs and you don't receive any benefit unless you are old, disabled or poor. In addition part of the cost of most of the things you buy have employer based healthcare costs rolled into it. You are paying coming and going right now."

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Save everybody, yourself included, and somehow save money doing it. Show me a plan where the numbers pan out in a cost effective, easy to understand manner and I'll hop on board. Until then, I will happily choose to pay an insurance company (that I can argue claims against, fight against, and otherwise be more than a voter segment to) and keep my choice of being able to stand up and walk to another provider if I so choose.

So far as the benefits being offered taking away from a potential salary. I'm not about to miss what I never had in the first place. Assuming that companies would offer higher wages is a terrible assumption to make. More than likely the company would take the money that they were saving and reinvest it in order to produce even more money. But then, thats just my guess, just as your guess is that salaries would increase.

I agree with you, FedUp. Addressing the reason health care is so costly may be a much better way of getting more people health care while not removing the options for getting that care that are currently available.

So you assume it would cost more without doing any research. And you assume you have more options now, without doing any research. And you assume you are not already paying more than you should without doing any research. And you assume you have some sort of options with a private health insurer. Well you don't. You can change providers if you have a personal plan, but if you are on an employer plan they make all the decisions not you.

Actually, I choose to work for an employer that offers multiple providers. But that was a nice assumption ;) . I also have a great thing called the internet that lets me research private health coverage (Yes, that would be pretty pricey). And I already know that I am paying too much. That doesn't mean that I want to give my options away and settle for whatever the government decides is the best coverage for me. I'd rather pick my own service and the price range that I am willing to pay.

And you're assuming a whole lot of things about what I'm assuming.

You assume I haven't done my research. I have.

I KNOW healthcare costs are ridiculous. I never said otherwise. If you think I did, please read my post #4.6.

I KNOW I have options with private insurance. I'm on an employer plan, but I have my pick of just about every doctor in my city. I have never been denied a claim, never been denied a medication, test, or procedure. I make the decisions, and after all these years of being on employer sponsored plans, I always have.

So in the future, I would suggest not making so many assumptions about other people's assumptions.

Socialized medicine is badly needed in this country.

then

The money spent on premiums would be much better spent if the monies were paid directly to the hospitals and the providers.

Do you really think our tax dollars will go straight to the hospitals and providers, and not through a beaurocratic web that will suck most of the money into paying civil servants to push paper and make those same decisions the insurance companies now make regarding treatment eligibility?

Here is the cost of the current bureautic web sucking up or dollars.

Given the wide variation in administrative cost estimates, government data provide a natural reference point. The annual National Health Expenditures (NHE) accounts report administrative expenditures of $143 billion in 2005. This amounts to 7.2 percent of total U.S. health care spending, broken out as 14.1 percent for private insurers and 5.2 percent for public programs (3.1 percent for Medicare and 7.0 percent for Medicaid).

http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/pdf/admincosts.pdf

Frankly I would rather have someone with no profit motive administering my health insurance than someone whose best interest is to not pay for care.

Frankly I would rather have someone with no profit motive administering my health insurance than someone whose best interest is to not pay for care.

When was the last time the government ran anything efficiently? When was the last time you visited a VA clinic/hospital? Do you really think every veteran who qualifies for medical care actually receives the care they need, in a timely manner, without jumping through a thousand hoops and getting stuck in miles of red tape? Now multiply that by MILLIONS. The costs won't come down, because the government has no reason to bring them down. Not when taxpayers are footing the bill. So all we end up with is poor quality treatment, when you're actually allowed to receive it, and soaring taxes to pay for it.

As far as healthcare goes, it does need reformed so that it is more affordable for anyone (WHO CHOOSES) can have a plan that suits them, but CHOICE is the key. As soon as we socialize medicine we lose choices. We have the best medical practioners in the world and I, for one, don't want some politician deciding what it best for me and mine.

Unless you are independently wealthy, you already don't have much choice for care. Health insurance companies hire experts whose sole function is to analyze every claim and find ways to deny or delay payment. If that person says the treatment is not covered under your plan it is unlikely that you will get that treatment unless you like bankruptcy. (1 in 3 bankruptcies are due to medical bills.)

So who is deciding what is best for you and yours?

Single payer insurance is not socialized medicine, it is socialized insurance. Doctors, nurses and health care facilities are still privately owned and operated. There will be controls placed on care but it won't be because of a profit motive.

"Unless you are independently wealthy, you already don't have much choice for care."

Choosing not to pay for health insurance is still a choice. Just because you don't have a wonderful job with high pay (education helps to fix this, as does motivation), have too many bills that require a piece of that paycheck (living outside your means), have too many children to support (again, a choice) or are otherwise bogged down by your own personal choices... they are still choices. Choosing what is important to you in life is part of being a responsible adult. The $2000 TV, the $100+ a month cable bill, the choice to eat out on a regular basis... all of these are expenses that could be put towards something better, like health care or an education that will move you towards an employer who provides health care.

It is still a choice.

Well said Sidona!

So if you break a leg and need surgery and you have no health insurance what happens? Everyone else (the government) pays for your care. Then you go bankrupt. That is truly a responsible option.

And it also raises the price for everyone else at the same time.

Canadian-dual-citizen here, so I could care less personally. I just wish you would understand how bad your system is.

Canadian-dual-citizen here, so I could care less personally. I just wish you would understand how bad your system is.

Why is it then, that so many Canadian citizens travel to the U.S. for medical care?

Why is it then, that so many Canadian citizens travel to the U.S. for medical care?

Do you have numbers or a link for that statment? I see people spouting it all the time WITHOUT showing proof.

Here are a few links:

http://www.komonews.com/news/10216201.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=TopStories

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080119.neuro191/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

"So if you break a leg and need surgery and you have no health insurance what happens? Everyone else (the government) pays for your care. Then you go bankrupt. That is truly a responsible option."

If I break a leg and have no health care, I'm an idiot who probably should have thought long term enough to realize no one gets through life without an injury or two. And, personally, I'm smart enough to set up a payment plan with the hospital/doctor's office so that I can pay my own way.

So you prefer bankruptcy.

Actually, I prefer budgeting.

How can you budget for a catastophic event? A single event can cost six figures in the wink of an eye.

How can you budget for a catastophic event? A single event can cost six figures in the wink of an eye.

There's always the option of "major medical" insurance - low premiums, a reasonable deductible, and coverage in the event of a "catastrophic" injury/illness. Take responsibility for your own well-being, don't expect the taxpayers to do it for you.

Many people working full time jobs cannot afford even a major medical plan. Something must be done to bring down the cost. Competition hasn't done it. Then there is the unemployed who have no income. Then there is the uninsurable. If you are old or disabled insurers will not even provide you a major medical plan.

Taking responsibility is right, but it just doesn't cover everyone, and the problem is in this country we all pay for those not covered. We should at least try do do it at the best cost and when illnesses and injuries haven't progressed to advanced stages.

MON,

While I agree that medical insurance prices are an outrage, how do we fix it?

If we give health insurance to people that aren't working or can't simply afford it, someone else will have to pay for it.

Now granted I do not live in a country where they have Universal Healthcare, so I am just speculating. This would in turn mean that even the unemployed or people who have never worked a day in their life would receive benifits? I have this as a question because I do not know 100%

And I am sure I will get the people in here saying that everyone deserves treatment, which I will never argue about. But at the same time, why should we pay for someone that does not even want to help themselves? If they have no desire to be productive why keep letting them feed off the system?

In nature the slowest weakest will be left behind because you as a group are only as good as the weakest member. Nature has its own way of weeding out the animals that would not other wise make it.

Yes my comments might seem harsh, but my point is where do we stop this? What happens when the people who do work hard put their hands up and say no more?

Anyways if you feel as though my comments are harsh or mean spirited, I will have to blame it on the Ruby Tuesday burger I just had. Just like the people who are not responsible for their own actions neither am I... It was the burgers fault!

P.S. I like the idea of blaming someone else for my own problems! It's so easy!

Many people working full time jobs cannot afford even a major medical plan. Something must be done to bring down the cost. Competition hasn't done it.

There really isn't true competition in the market. The end-user isn't usually the one making the decision about which company to choose. If individuals purchased their own insurance, at reasonable rates, and were able to keep it regardless of job change, out-of-state moves, etc.

Then there is the unemployed who have no income. Then there is the uninsurable. If you are old or disabled insurers will not even provide you a major medical plan.

They are currently covered by Medicaid/Medicare.

I guess my whole issue with this isn't so much the cost, it's the governmental "takeover" of one more aspect of private citizens' lives. It's one more giant step toward "Big Brother" making decisions for me. And I will never be okay with that.

Shawn,

1) we already are paying for it, but we get the worst deal in the world.

2) Everyone has the right to be healthy if they choose to take care of their health.

3) Being healthy and fighting illness should never bankrupt someone.

The solution in something like the German system. Everyone is covered by private not-for-profit insurence companies that the individual chooses. It is paid for out of their own pocket if they are working, if not, the governmnet flips the bill to maintain continuous coverage. All the private insurence companies negotiate with all the hospitals on a single price book for the year so no matter where you go, you know what a procedure will cost, and prices can remain as low as possible.

I am doing the explanation an injustice. Please watch the frontline documentary "sick around the world". you can google it and watch it free on the PBS site. It is very good and looks at a lot of different systems, their pros, and cons (from an American view)
and what we should learn from them for our own reform efforts.

Behind My Screen,

Yes I know we are already paying for it. What if we weren't? How much savings would that be? Would it make health care affordable to the average joe?

Again I am seeking information, I am not knocking any style or proposed style till I see and weigh the options.

I will check into the documentary when I get a chance. Thanks for the info!

So you're OK with this?

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.¹ Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.¹

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

^{http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml}

Personally, I can't afford it.

So why not look at why it costs so much in order to lower costs? Is the price high because of research? Malpractice claims? The cost of medical training? What adds into it, what is inflating the price, and what can be done to resolve the issues without removing consumer's options of how they want to handle their finances? Seems like that would be a better way to go than just lumping everyone in together and hoping for a bulk discount.

If the people want universal health care, college education, food, etc., who is government to tell us no?

Umm, it's not really what the government was created to do. Why on earth should we WANT the government to dole out college degrees, food, or healthcare? Why wouldn't we want to take care of these things as responsible citizens? This country was founded on the basis of trying to escape a tyrannical government, and the more control we give our government in our personal lives, the more tyrannical they can - and will - become.

This country was founded on the basis of trying to escape a tyrannical government, and the more control we give our government in our personal lives, the more tyrannical they can - and will - become.

A pedestrian is hit by a car. They are unconscious and bleeding in the street. No one present knows the person. What should be done about it?

Oh, give me a break. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Anyone with a conscience will help someone lying bleeding in front of them. However, after calling 911 and administering what first aid I am capable of, I don't plan on paying their hospital bill.

911 is a government provided service paid for by your taxes. Do you approve of the intrusion into your personal resources for that?

Who picks them up? A private for profit ambulance service. Who pays for that? Do you want to verify ability to pay before they get picked up? If they can't pay do you recommend leaving them there in the street? Where does the ambulance take them? To a hospital. Who pays for that? Do you want to verify ability to pay before they are admitted? If they can't pay, do you recommend leaving them back in the street?

Currently all of us pay for all of those things if the person injured is uninsured through our taxes. So, are those services worth the intrusion on your freedom and the cost to your personal treasury or do you prefer the leave them in the street option?

I know you apparently want to characterize anyone against socialized healthcare as greedy, selfish and uncharitable. However, that's not the case.

Emergency services are just that - for emergencies. No one on this board who is against socializing healthcare would be okay with NOT treating someone in an emergency situation. I realize we all currently pay for those who are not covered. I never said the current system is a good one, I just don't agree that a government takeover is the best option.

Just to be clear. I support socializing health insurance, not health care. There is a difference.

The only thing I recommend the government take over is health insurance.

Just to be clear. I support socializing health insurance, not health care. There is a difference.

Just for the sake of argument, why is auto insurance relatively cheap compared to medical coverage? Competition. Allstate knows that if they don't provide competitive rates, I'll call Geico. If Geico's rates don't cover all that State Farm covers, I can switch. I can also select the level of coverage I feel comfortable with.

Again, I don't think our current system is good; I believe it should be much more affordable for those on lower incomes. I simply don't agree that the government should be put in charge of any part of it that they aren't already.

Auto insurance is relatively cheap because the potential risk is easily ascertained and completely finite based on law.

Heatlh coverage has much greater risk, therefore much greater cost.

Most people don't even make their own health coverage decisions because they rely on employers to provide it. If they did, it would be very difficult to compare plans based on cost, service and coverage details.

Besides competition is already not working to contain costs.