Actually, no it doesn’t.
Again according to the census, an additional 27% of the United States population is enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid or other government-sponsored health-care programs. That means the private insurance health-care system actually only provides full coverage for 57.2% of the U.S. population. This number does not include harder to pin down statistics like the “under-insured” — people who have token health insurance plans that provide little to no real coverage. (I’ve been there myself.)
Those government programs are “socialized medicine.” The socialized medicine we’ve been told to fear has actually been an integral part of American health care for 45 years. If you dispute it works well, try taking Medicare away from seniors. And if you fear “rationing,” what else do you call it when there isn’t enough health care for everyone?
Tags: glenn beck, health care, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, obama, obamacare, sarah palin, uninsured
This may be a technical nitpick, but on section 4, you say that all countries above us have a single-payer system. This is actually not true. Many of those countries do not have single payer systems. I know for a fact that Switzerland and the Netherlands have fairly loose private systems that are just more heavily regulated and subsidised than in the U.S. (this is essentially what the Democrats in the U.S. are proposing.) Some countries differentiate between kinds of care, with expensive emergency hospital care being state funded and much outpatient care not. The important thing to note in all cases is that they have universal coverage achieved by subsidies and regulation or single-payer. They also have cost controls in instances where perverse incentives would otherwise wreak havoc on health care cost (which is what happens in the U.S).
In any event, it’s annoying when people assume that good universal health care requires a state run or single payer system to be efficient and effective. It’s simply not true, and it clouds the real debate, which is not whether we should have Universal healthcare, which really shouldn’t even be a debate, but whether it should be a more federated healthcare system, or more centrally controlled.
As if the Nation want already in a crisis with the recession going on. All we need now is a bunch of undereducated unemployed Obama lovers running around collecting even more free healthcare off of the hard working tax payers dollar. Ever wonder where these benefits will come from? Yeah thats right, your federal income taxes and property taxes will shoot up. I got an idea for these fools, military service, yes thats right, go to war, get your medical. Bunch of fools to support this government run health bill. I say look at where the problem stems. Look at the medical suppliers, pharmicudical producers, insurance companies, and the American legal system that allows every low life out of work low life Obama lover to sue for anything slightly related to medical mal-practice. You want to fix health care costs, fix those first, but not off of my damn dollar!
You are entitled to your opinion, however, I would like to point out that I’m a full-time student, working two jobs, paying my taxes, and I’m one of the 50 million uninsured. There are indeed problems that need to be fixed in the American system, and many are factors that drive up the cost of healthcare. Currently, and even though I’m a law-abiding and tax-paying citizen, the only private healthcare I can afford is one that only covers horrific disaster.
I wouldn’t mind an increase in my income taxes if it meant I can go to a doctor when I’m sick, or go to a dentist when I need a check-up. I have food allergies, and it would put my mind at ease to be able to visit the doctor and have an epi pen in the event that I inadvertently were to ingest something that could send me into anaphylactic shock. If I were to go into anaphylactic shock, it would be even better to know that I won’t be getting a $5,000 emergency room bill for saving my life.
As I said, you’re entitled to your opinion. Next time, though, you might consider using spelling and grammar check before you post on a forum. It would help you to avoid sounding like something akin to an angry and uneducated person who speaks louder to sound more intelligent.
William, do you know anyone with Medicare? And if so, would you advocate they lose their coverage as well?
Ricky, you are correct. I should use spell check and Grammar check. I dont claim to be the most intelligent person in the world. One thing for sure though, i have medical insurance. I as well am in the Army. You chose to go to school and work 2 jobs. Ever think of one full time job at say, Target, where they offer full time employees benefits?
I as well am a Medic in the Army. Anaphylatic shock does suck, but only you can control that. Who tells you to go out and leave your fate in the hands of omeone who you do not know? Many people i know with food allergies, avoid eating out, or scrutinize the menu before they order.
My suggestion to you, get a job that does offer benefits. Hell, even McDonalds offers benefits to full time employees. You are making the choices that have the effect on your life.
You want benefits while in college? Try to join ROTC. I am sure though, that with your food allergies comes other p*ssy pains and issues that would probably prevent you from going this route in life.
So beg your president to fight those that are driving these costs up. You know the type, they sue for everything, or are sitting in the county hospitals for days on end for there fair share of the free care they never pay back. High drug costs, and extremely expensive medical equipment that doesnt take much manufacture.
Please have a wonderful day and try not to consume anything that might occlude your airway. Having a tube in your throat to keep your away open is never a fun thing.
Wow Williams. It took exactly two comments and 1 day for you to return the comment thread to the exact kind of “bombast and hyperbole” the author expressly requested be left out. The larger point of the article was not healthcare, it was that we, as a country are no longer to have a rational debate. Evidently, we are all just too stupid to think for ourselves so we cling to MSNBC and FOX news to do it for us. I’m not sure I agree with trying to provide healthcare, or any other benefit to a country that is so fundamentally incapable civil discourse. Thank you for illustrating the point so eloquently.
Hey no problem Joe. Anytime for a fellow American.
Yea William, every one should work at Mcdonalds, that will fix our healthcare problem. College is for pussys anyways, why should we get an education. I know this might blow your mind, but people do need to get educated to perform certain jobs successfully. AND just for your information, the military is socialist. Why should I have to pay for your health care? Shit, You’re the one who enlisted, you knew the risks when you enlisted, hell you get shot in the field we should’t be responsible for you. Nice logic.
I agree, you shouldnt have to pay for my healthcare either. But guess what, you do! Yes, i enlisted knowing full well i would go to war one day. I enlisted right out of highschool. As for working at McDonald’s, it was used to show that there is healthcare options out there if you look hard enough and are willing to do the job. I do agree that there are some jobs, not many, that if you do not have the proper education, you will fail at it. There arent many though. When you are in a job that does not provide anything for healthcare, well, you made that choice. So if you get deathly ill, it isnt my fault and i am not to worry about it. Yes, even serving in the Army, despite what you might think, i still pay federal taxes, Social Security, and medicare.
I did also take an $8500 bonus for reenlisting this time for 6 years, and $18,500 the last time i reenlisted for 6 years. Which, i maybe should thank you for that. As well I am responding to you on duty hours, from a Gov PC, again, thank you.
So, i guess if i get shot in the field, maybe i owe you one? I mean i have 16 years in and 4 away from retiring @ 37. I own 3 houses, and own 2 late model vehicles, 08 & 09. i am almost finished with my free college as well, thank you for that. The $700,000 my wife gets if i die while in the Army, i guess i can thank you for that too.
Idiot.
After rereading all of your posts I realize you need to first learn what socialism is. Second take a class in logic. No reason why you should get health care instead of him. Third learn something about the actual health care debate. Do you have any idea why drugs cost a lot. Do you have any idea how much malpractice lawsuits account for. Do you understand how the laws are set up right now that force people to turn towards emergency rooms who can’t afford insurance because they are the only people forced to see them. Finally you’re just fucking stupid if you think that there are very few jobs that don’t require a college education.
[...] Marcotte’s website, BadMouth.net, has some interesting things to say about the health care debate. Like: Well reasoned health-care policy can only be reached through the careful application of [...]
The biggest problem that NEVER gets discussed is that patients do not pay doctors. Does your car insurance cover oil changes? Does your home owner’s insurance cover a new kitchen sink? No, they cover your car and house when something awful happens. Call your hospital and ask about the prices of regular procedures. Most won’t even discuss it with you, only your insurance company. When people start paying doctors, you will have your real competitive market place of services in healthcare and the downward pressure of prices. Our healthcare industry is the only market in this country where customers don’t pay the respective business. Think about that.
So then the point is made: healthcare costs a lot – the average American can’t afford it. True, today. But that is in large part because of the inflated prices. But Americans should also be asked to save a portion (POST-tax) of their income for medical services – somewhat like our HSA system. Look at your healthcare premium on your paystub and multiply out that number over the a year. 99% of people won’t spend that amount on healthcare, only a fraction. Why not put that in a savings account instead? And then when you finally need that knee operation, YOU can pay for it from a savings, just like you’ll pay for that new sink from your savings. Have you ever thought about how a child’s birth is an insurance claim? Why aren’t families planning for that expense the same way they plan to buy a house or a new car? Insurance is supposed to be for the UNexpected.
So in the case where you get hit by a bus? That’s when insurance or the government steps in – as a vehicle of “catastrophic, this is going to bankrupt me” coverage. But in those cases, premiums should be on the order of dollars per month, not hundreds or thousands.
But everything else should be paid for just like an oil change and new sink- out of our pockets. Medical expenses should be seen as another other bill in life. In the end, we need to be focused on the downward pressure of healthcare prices, not necessarily the expansion of coverage. You get the latter if you take care of the former.
CQ I appreciate where you are coming from, But a lot of families can barely afford the necessities as it is. I realize people don’t NEED a lot of the things they allocate money for, but (rightly or wrongly) that’s what our society values. On top of that, life becomes dismal if you have to live without the niceties (and the economy ceases to function if people stop buying them). The problem with the health care business is that it is a business. People don’t pay their doctors, and that means everyone else has to pay more in order for the system to continue to function. But, HMOs and other insurance companies have doctors by their … Let’s say stethoscopes.
if you had an insurance company whose only purpose was to provide people with health care at a reasonable cost (as opposed to turning a profit for their investors by providing health care), more doctors would get paid. People would visit doctors before things progress to the stage of becoming truly desperate, and on whole we would be a healthier society.
Also, there is a huge difference between hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer treatment, and 70 dollars for an oil change. Even if most people were to forgo the niceties and save just in case they got cancer, it would really just be a drop in the bucket.
Rich, I’d be fine with some sort of tax credit or voucher to low income families to cover doctor visits. And I don’t mean to suggest that an oil change and a knee operation are the same relative cost to a family – just that they exist, in theory, under the same model of business (insurance) and yet one is treated drastically different than the other. The overall point is that people don’t factor healthcare into their lives because they are shielded from the costs by insurance. And that’s a distortion of the true market. If you owned a car and a part is under warranty, do you ever think twice about having that work done to your car if the mechanic recommends it? No way. Do you think twice when the warrenty expires and you’re paying for it? Of course.
It is the same principle with health insurance. Yes, it’s our health (our wealth) and should be thought of differently – with more social respect – than a car but it does exist in a market that doesn’t allow for the true costs to be burdened by the consumer or charged by the doctor. Instead, we have a mangled, hydra of a health insurance market in the way, adding inefficiency to pieces of a system that doesn’t necessarily need it.
Google “who much does an MRI cost” or something like that. You won’t get a straight answer. Sure, it has a range, but so does a laptop computer. Google how much a laptop costs and you’ll get a million results. I pay Best Buy for my computer, and people should be paying doctors for their healthcare. Of course we need smart social programs to prevent anyone from going bankrupt due to a major catastrophe but until people think of their health as part of their budget, we’re going to continue to have out of control medical costs.
CQ, 1) By making people pay out of pocket for health care you discourage people to go and seek out help until something is about to fall off.
2) The problem with vouchers is that you need a cut off point, so a person making one dollar over that arbitrarily determined value then has incentive to stay below it, unless they can make significantly more. (i.e. if the cut off is 40,000 a year for a family of 4, and insurance for that same family will cost 10,000 a year, if by working hard and making an extra 5,000 or 10,000 they are no better off than they were before you take away the incentive to work harder)
3a) Health care as it stands is a business, that we allow to collude. They use statistical determinations to make sure they turn a profit, and everyone is using the same actuarial tables (or something close enough that it might as well be the same). A public option which provides Real health care on an as needed basis, rather than just a plan for catastrophic injury will force them to innovate. Or at the very least, reduce shareholder profits.
3b) By providing a public option, you also force insurance companies to stop denying claims. If people can’t go to the doctors they want, they’ll have a real alternative.
3c) By making a public health plan available to everyone, and making sure it pays a fair amount for services, doctors will be able to charge less, as they actually get paid for their services, and they don’t need to charge us more in order to insure against those who don’t.
3d) Not that congress has the balls to do it, but by if the public option were to actually enroll medicare, medicade, and even Federal Employees (at the same level of coverage they are at now) they would have leverage with drug companies. The price we pay for drugs subsidizes the world, and CEOs wallets.
Call me a socialist, but there’s no reason that more 95% of the wealth should be in the hands of 10% of the people (i’m not sure if these are the exact numbers, but it’s probably close). I see healthcare as a way to protect the middle class, and (dare i say it?) redistribute some of the wealth at the top.
Imagine the good that could come from an insurance company that pays its CEO a paltry 250,000, rather than whatever the standard rate is. (i imagine there’s at least another zero there though). That says nothing of the share holders, etc. Think of the middle class jobs you would create. Someone has to clean the buildings, someone has to answer the phones, someone has to enter the data.
The money that goes into government run healthcare already would be quite a hefty endowment, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that such a company could become self sufficient, or eventually require less capital from Washington to function. If this were to happen, maybe we could start doing something about social security. (we’ll save that topic for another day though).
Sincerely,
Comrade Rich
To your points:
1) That is a logical conclusion but I don’t think any of the initial data with high deductible health plans is showing that is the case. When people are feeling sick, they are going to the doctor. Remember the flip side to your argument is that people who aren’t sick are not clogging ER’s and doctor’s offices and thus raising costs. I realize there is a balance between the two but again, I don’t think any of the stats of high deductible plans are showing that people are getting more sick because they are waiting longer. I’d be interested if you have data that says otherwise.
2) Sure. I get all that. Structure the cost breaks for the poor however you want: tax breaks, vouchers, deductions, whatever. The point is that I agree low income folks will need a little help in paying for the doctor’s visit. Get them the cash however is best.
3) I don’t see how healthcare colludes today. Using statistical analysis to turn a profit is more or less the essence of business and the actual definition of insurance. That’s what they’re supposed to do. At the same time, I’m not opposed to the public option, I think it creates a necessary competitor to drive prices lower. But we have a bad tendency in this country to focus on “the corporate bad guy” when the real problem is the structure of the market as a whole. Businesses do what they’re supposed to do: make money. Wall Street, oil companies, health insurance, all of them. Rather than focusing on their evil CEO’s we should be more worried about adjusting their motivators and what drives their business to better serve the greater good rather than have witch hunts for management salaries.
3b) I don’t understand why a public option prevents private insurance from denying claims.
3c) Agreed. And this is why I support the public option. Doctors prices need to be driven down.
3d) A drug’s price should be determined by no entity except the marketplace. We’ve been duped into thinking that for some reason medicines are the one product we need someone else negotiating the price. If I have a choice between three statins, I’m going to take the best product for me. It shouldn’t be the product that the government or insurance has negotiated to the lowest co-pay. The government doesn’t negotiate anything else I buy. Your auto insurance doesn’t negotiate the cost for parts. That is what keeps the drug costs high – a false marketplace (and the bad guy CEO’s wallets lined)
There is nothing wrong with having socialist view points. The greatest trick the conservative movement played on America was to make the words “socialist” and “liberal” an insult. I fully support the government getting involved in regulating the healthcare market better. But it should be with the objective of creating better competition for the overall market that benefits the consumer, rather than just taking it over. As much as Lindsey Graham (who’s third highest donor is Blue Cross Blue Shield) and these other liars in Congress want to say, this will not destroy American healthcare. It will simply shift it and in a healthy direction. But again, I caution against the mentality of vilifying CEOs or corporations all together. That’s the easy way out. The issue is in the structure of the overall market and that’s what needs to be changed. I support the government stepping in to be the lowest cost provider but in the end, we need the healthcare market to move away from insurance (private or public) footing every health bill. People need to be paying doctors.
Tort liability provides a valuable check on the medical community. Yes, it increases costs because Doctor’s Malpractice insurance is more expensive, but I’d be willing to venture a guess that’s because insurance companies are in the business of making profit through insurance rather than providing insurance because it’s a socially good thing to do. I’m not saying companies don’t have a right to make a profit, but putting profit first and foremost is equally nonsensical. If you were to reform tort laws, it would be a boon for the insurance company first and foremost, and I’d be willing to bet it would do little to nothing on the cost of health care in this country.
Also, in hearing about all these “frivolous” Claims, people neglect the vast number of legitimate claims which go unlitigated. Or the number of legitimate claims that are litigated for that matter.
William, Sorry to hear your Income/Property taxes will go up as a result of the health care. I’m slightly more sympathetic to the people who have No Income or Property to raise taxes on. Instead of complaining about the Low life Obama lovers, perhaps the issue is with the Well-to-do Bushies who keep all of their money because it’s theirs and they earned it (by exploiting the poor and uninsured), or the corporations who keep hide income off shore in order to prevent paying taxes. Or the companies we give tax breaks to out-source jobs to Mexico and India. Obama didn’t create these issues, (i doubt bush did either).
As a low life Obama liker (i wouldn’t say love) without health care, I think there are a lot of better ways to fix the country’s problems without using William’s hard earned money, but until people start voting intelligently William, It’s on you.
You may have some points. If you read some of my other posts, i do say where else you can fix it. I dont make enough to pay higher taxes and, well, i deploy to combat zones to make the money that pays for my property, the one i own and made sure not to get into a mortgage i couldnt afford if i became unemployeed for some reason. I dont blame anyone for their misfortunes other than themselves. Sorry. As for medical coverage and dental, the military gives it for free.
One may want to check the tax rates in the other countries listed with single payer public healthcare systems.
You will find that the income tax rate is tremendous.
What many don’t realize is that we have what is very close to a socialized medical system. Medicare, Medicare, Health and Human Services — these are all public entities. Obama is taking a relatively small step to full socialism.
Basic question is: Should one be FORCED to give medical service? Thats what socialized healthcare is. Taxes (which are taken by force) to pay doctors pre-determined rates. That will lead to rationing and over-use as what is happening now with the bankrupt Medicare.
Corporatism is the real culprit, not capitalism. Obama wants to force the providers to provide at a govt determined price. The GOP wants to limit competition and protect their constituents from market foces while giving lip service to free market ideals.
We should do whatever possible to go to a true free market system. One where any healthcare provider can give service to anyone they so choose and for whatever price or lack thereof they choose to.
That is the solution.
The REAL problem is that the American public has come to expect every possible test to be done for/on them. In the past, someone tweaked their knee and saw their doctor. Rest, ice, anti-inflammatories. If it didn’t get better, physical therapy. If it still didn’t get better, then an MRI. Now, someone hurts their knee and they demand an MRI, threatening to sue their doctor for “delay in diagnosis” even though a meniscal tear is treated with surgery only if conservative measures fail. An old person comes in to the ER after falling. Each one of them will get a head CT scan. Someone comes into the ER with abdominal pain and has to get an abdominal CT scan because they could have something wrong. The threat of unending lawsuits against doctors has driven them to practice CYA (cover-your-ass) medicine. Why should a doctor spend an hour of his/her time trying to explain in vain to a patient that they don’t need this test or that test. “I pay my insurance. I want that test” or “Well, if you don’t order it and something is wrong, I’m going to sue you.”
And how about the costs of medicines? Medicines that allow the American public to continue their bad lifestyles — diabetic meds for people who can’t control how much they eat; chemotherapy drugs for people who can’t put the cigarette down (and it’s the tabacco companies faults for making them smoke), the anti-reflux drugs for the people who eat too much or drink too much coffee or drink alcohol with dinner or eat late in the evening.
And how much do you think a good doctor is worth? Ask your doctor how many patients he/she has on their panel. Average is about 2300. Why so many? because HMOs pay a doctor about $10/month per patient plus the co-pay for visits. The doctor has to see the patient, follow up on tests, explain this or that, educate, etc all for the $10 co-pay that the patient complains is too much. And the money the doctor gets needs to cover his/her expenses including office rent, salaries and benefits for his/her employees, insurance, transcription, new computers and equipment, computerized medical systems, etc. How much does a lawyer charge per hour? For that matter, how about a plumber?
Want to know how to decrease the cost of healthcare? Teach Americans to take responsibility for themselves — live healthy lifestyles — don’t smoke, don’t over eat, exercise, take the stairs instead of the elevator, minimize alcohol intake. Realize that you DON’T need a pill just because the commercial on television shows a happy person no longer suffering from a problem similar to your own just because they took the newest pill/capsule on the market.
I’m fine with financing necessary health care for those who can’t afford it, as long as that financing comes from the money saved by changing the system. In the US we pay 16% of our GDP to cover around 85% of our population. In the UK they spend 8.4% of their GDP to cover everyone.
That tells me that their healthcare costs are much lower than ours. $7,300 per person v.s. $3000 per person. If we got our costs down to their costs, we could cover everyone and take home an extra 4,000$ per year. Drivnig down the costs should be the MAIN focus of healthcare reform. Once the costs are in line, existing govt programs could expand w/o additional funding. Problem solved, everyone happy except the profiteers screwing the rest of us.
Mexico is at the bottom because they all come to the US for their funded healthcare.
It’s that simple!
[...] have no problem banning divorce. Incidentally, Marcotte’s website, BadMouth.net, has some interesting things to say about the health care debate. Like: Well reasoned health-care policy can only be reached through the careful application of [...]
I want to sign the ban divorce pettion. I will also get other signatures for you too. Just tell me where to find it.
To William—-love your comment about “undereducated” Obama lovers. Please look at a US map and see which states were blue and which were red in the last election and then compare educational statistics for each, such as NAEP tests, percentage of high school graduates, percentage of residents with degrees, including higher degrees,etc.
You will find that the blue states rank far above the red states, educationwise. I live in MA, the most progressive state in the union, and I would compare the education of our populace with any red state, any time.
Don’t spout off on things about which you don’t know. President Obama was supported by a very well-educated constituency.
yOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ ON THE RECORD TURN OUT OF BLACKS IN THE VOTE DID YOU? NOT SAYING THEY ARE ALL UNDEREDUCATED, BUT I KNOW HERE IN THE GHETTOS OF DC, THE LINES WENT FOR A MILE OR SO AT EACH SPOT. HE DIDNT WIN CAUSE HE WAS THE MOST QUALIFIED, AND McCAIN WAS JUST AS UNDER QUALIFIED. ITS JUST BOTH PARTIES COULDNT FIND ANYONE DUMB ENOUGH, THAT WOULD DO A GOOD JOB, TO FILL THE SPOT. SO THEY PUT THESE 2 AGAINST EACH OTHER AND LEFT OUR FATE IN YOUR HANDS AND WELL, YOU SEE THE TURN OUT. THE ALLEGED MINORITY WON. FUNNY HOW HE WAS CLAIMING HE WAS PART WHITE UNTIL HE GOT ELECTED.
William, I can’t quite put my finger on why… but there is something ironic about you leading a cause against the “uneducated.” I’ll think of it.
What EVA!! LMFAO. Think what you want, as well think maybe, just maybe some of my stuff was typed wrong for a reason. Mucho Gracias Amigo!
When people write their whole comment with caps lock on, it tells me something about both their intelligence and their level of education…
Once government takes over, the only way for YOU to get free or subsidized health care is for someone else to have their wages taken and re-distributed to you … that’s called SOCIALISM. You should not be proud of being a socialist.
Jesus was a socialist. What do you have against Jesus?