If you ever wonder why I sometimes refer to some Democrats as the loony left, go check out this website, where Gephardt calls everything Bush has done a Miserable Failure, to include simply the man himsef, and then promises to revive the economy (which is recovering quite nicely, thank you) with (DRUM ROLL, please)- nationalized health insurance:
As president, Dick Gephardt will restore the American economy using principles of growth he helped forge in the early 1990s. Most significantly, he will work to provide the surest stimulus measure we can give our economy: providing guaranteed health insurance for all Americans. This will give direct financial help to families who pay health care premiums, provide assistance to businesses and state and local governments struggling to pay health care costs for employees, and free up money for better wages and job creation.
Insert your own quip in the comments section.
whatever
Ah yes, he will make sure each person gives according to his ability, receives according to his needs. It’s a new way of government!
GFW
We should definitely continue with the Health Care system we have. It’s working so WELL!
Mason
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/004099.html#004099
There’s the loony left for you. This is why I’m not very worried about Democrats winning the election.
Mason
(be sure to read a few of the comments)
Imam Pshyco Muhammed
Gephardt gives stupid a bad name.
Gill Smith
Health care premiums for families in employer-sponsored plans soared 13.9 percent in 2003, the third year of double-digit growth and the biggest spike since 1990, a new study found.
Annual family premiums increased to $9,068 this spring, according to a survey of 2,808 companies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, each a health research organization.
Firms with three to nine workers faced the largest increase with a 16.6 percent surge in premiums. Mid-sized companies with between 200 and 999 workers had the smallest increase with a 12.4 percent growth rate.
something has to be done, and a national plan seems to be the best answer. More and more Americans can’t afford health care anymore, plus it’s killing business development.
David Perron
Yeah, that’s right. Making it part of the government will make it more efficient. Pull the other one, now.
GFW
Dave, what’s your solution?
David Perron
I don’t have one. I don’t have to have one. If you’re so almighty concerned with whatever you perceive the healthcare problem in the U.S. to be, then form your own charitable group and solicit funds. Or whatever; do something yourself. The government is not the solution to every problem, it’s a near guarantee of introduction of inefficiency into the solution.
Mason
I’m pretty damn happy with the health care system we have now, thank you very much. It aint perfect, but it’s pretty damn good.
JKC
Dave Perron sez…
“it’s a near guarantee of introduction of inefficiency into the solution.”
Wrong answer, Dave, but thanks for playing.
Medicare’s administrative costs are approximately 2% as compared to 7 to 15% (or more)for private insurers.
JKC
After you’ve had a chance to read that, Dave, consider the overhead for every physician office spent on dealing with four or more insurers, each with a different schedule of payments, different paperwork, and different formularies.
scott h.
You might also want to consider Medicare fraud. “The U.S. Government Accounting Office estimates that for every $10 spent on Medicare, a conservative estimate is that $1 is either lost to fraud, waste, or abuse.” That’s 10%. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates 8%. Now whether or not this is significantly higher than the fraud suffered by private insurers is up for debate, However the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons describes Medicare as “A System Designed for Fraud”, so I’m thinking it’s much higher for Medicare.
JKC
Scott-
Your argument implies that there’s no fraud in private insurance plans. That would be wrong. (Worker’s Comp comes to mind, but fraud, unfortunately, is everywhere.)
David Perron
So, JKC, you make a rather effective argument for no centralized healthcare at all. Or have I misunderstood your intent, here?
I’m not sure I buy your comparison of cost. Your links are to 1) a Q&A on a Colorado state webpage and 2) A briefing from Kaiser on Federal Employee healthcare. Apples and handgrenades comparison, that. Even if you were comparing like things, which you’re not, you haven’t made any kind of case for cost comparison for the same quality of care.
Again, comparing Medicare fraud with Worker’s Comp cases is not comparing like things. Thanks for playing, though. I’d be interested in hearing your comparison of two things (public and private) that have something in common, if you can bother yourself to do that.
One more thing. Medicare outlays comprise over 10% of the entire Federal budget. Together with Medicaid, it’s more like 19%. And that’s to cover (or partially cover) 40 million people. To cover the whole population, it’d cost thirty percent more than the entire federal budget, just for Medicare. Sure, it’s a simplistic comparison. You’ve got to compare total costs. Lacking that, and lacking the inclination to research, I’m going to wait for the return volley.
Oh, here’s another interesting stat. Medicare serves 13% of the population and spends 19% of the total healthcare dollar. Sure, this is comparison of apples and oranges (probably quite different beneficiary demographics and all) but what the hell, that appears to be fair game. Oddly enough, Medicare seems to pay less than its share (considering demographics) in prescription drugs and dental; well above its share in hospitalization.
JKC
Dave, I actually work in the health care field as a practitioner, and I have a fair amount of experience with occupational health (i.e. workers comp) and Medicare patients.
“Medicare serves 13% of the population and spends 19% of the total healthcare dollar.”
Medicare also provides care to the elderly and disabled. Gee, I wonder why they’d require more health care spending than a healthy 25 year old?
“Oddly enough, Medicare seems to pay less than its share (considering demographics) in prescription drugs and dental; well above its share in hospitalization.”
Umm, maybe that’s because Medicare doesn’t cover prescription drugs and dental care, David.
“you haven’t made any kind of case for cost comparison for the same quality of care.”
Using Worker’s Comp and Medicare as examples, the only difference between the two is who’s writing the checks. Licenced MD’s, PA’s and NP’s in the US all receive the same education and have to meet licencing requirements in their individual states. Quality of care issues are more dependant on the individual practitioner. (I’m leaving out HMO’s… a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.)
You’re correct that a national health care system is going to be expensive. I think we’re going to end up with one eventually, as the wheels are coming of the current system. We do need to have a grown-up national discussion on how we’re going to pay for it if and when such a system is implicated.
David Perron
“Medicare also provides care to the elderly and disabled. Gee, I wonder why they’d require more health care spending than a healthy 25 year old?”
Gee, I’d already noted that. It always pays to actually read what others have written. But snark is so much more convenient.
“Umm, maybe that’s because Medicare doesn’t cover prescription drugs and dental care, David”
Odd that there’s a nonzero amount spent on prescription drugs, then. Sure, it’s only a couple of billion dollars, but that’s hardly zero. As for dental…look, the whole point of this was that 13% of the country is covered only in part by 20% of the federal budget. Given that Medicare covers mostly the elderly, don’t you think that full coverage for those 13% would maybe get a little more expensive?
“You’re correct that a national health care system is going to be expensive. I think we’re going to end up with one eventually, as the wheels are coming of the current system. We do need to have a grown-up national discussion on how we’re going to pay for it if and when such a system is implicated.”
Well, you first have to convince everyone that it’s needed, appropriate, and efficient. My vote on the issue is still “no”.
OTOH if we can keep total spending in line with that $1.1 trillion figure mentioned in my link (FY2000), Medicare would only raise the tax burden by 30-40%.
Still, even if it winds up being a wash, cost-wise, I’m a little unclear as to why I ought to be effectively paying someone else’s HC premiums in addition to my own.
JKC
“Still, even if it winds up being a wash, cost-wise, I’m a little unclear as to why I ought to be effectively paying someone else’s HC premiums in addition to my own.”
Hate to bust your little Randian bubble, Dave, but you already are. Want to know (in part) why hospital costs are high? Somebody’s got to pay for the uninsured guy who just walked into the ER with an acute appendix.
JKC
BTW: Medicare covers drugs prescibed in-hospital. Those drugs aren’t cheap. Medicaid covers inpatient and outpatient prescriptions.
scott h.
JKC, if you would take the time to reread the second to last sentence of my comment, you will see that I do not imply there is “no fraud in private insurance plans”. In fact, I specifically state the exact opposite.
David Perron
Randian? Well, you may assume what you want.
So, in essence your argument is that since there’s currently a bit of what I consider inequity, then we ought to just open the floodgates and allow all inequity? Or did I somehow misunderstand your point?
JKC
Dave, with all due respect, I doubt you tried to understand my point. : )
We currently have 43 million people in this country without health insurance. Those are people for whom an unforeseen catastrophic illness can cause economic disaster. They’re uninsured because premium hikes are making insurance unaffordable for small employers, or because they work for sleazy big companies that either don’t offer coverage or make it so expensive that their $8 per hour employees can’t afford it.
Do these people get medical care? Yeah- in overburdened free clinics (those few survivng budget cus) and Emergency departments. Guess who’s paying for that, Dave?
Tell me how a system that would guarantee coverage for everyone would be more unequal than what we have now?
If you want to discuss costs of such a system, how to budget for them, etc. I’m interested. If you want to wrap a lot of fancy writing around the thesis that all taxes are bad, and all government programs are worse (except for, presumably, your personal favorites), then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
David Perron
Ah, some good points. I’ll have to ponder those. Still, you’re going to have to convince me how healthcare via taxation is going to be somehow less (or equally as) expensive than healthcare as it is (or isn’t) now. Where’s that additional seven or eight hundred billion dollars going to come from? Does it equate to the sum total of health insurance premiums? And who’s going to administer, and how?
I do have to admit that my very soul cringes at the idea of the establishment of yet another government “service” that’s far outside the initial scope of government. You can ridicule that viewpoint, but those who think as I do are the very people that have to be convinced in order for something like this to pass.
Dean
JKC:
So, people aren’t covered by health care simply because their (big bad) employer won’t provide it, or because they can’t afford it?
BZZZT!
As someone who was once a bit younger than he is now, let me say that I had quite a few colleagues who CHOSE not to be covered. Both while working in the Federal Government, and in the private sector.
These were folks in their twenties who simply concluded that, given their salaries and their desired standard of living, they’d rather do without medical coverage.
So, before we chalk up every person w/o health insurance to the iniquities of the capitalist system, let’s also recognize that freedom of choice means that some, especially the young who believe that nothing will ever go wrong, will also CHOOSE to forego coverage.
And, no, that’s not EVERY person w/o it, but neither is it NONE w/o it.
JKC
Dean-
I’m well aware that there are a few folks out there who chose not to carry insurance. I bet they’re a small minority of the uninsured, but I don’t have any statistics on this.
JKC
“Still, you’re going to have to convince me how healthcare via taxation is going to be somehow less (or equally as) expensive than healthcare as it is (or isn’t) now. Where’s that additional seven or eight hundred billion dollars going to come from? Does it equate to the sum total of health insurance premiums? And who’s going to administer, and how?”
All fair questions. I don’t know the answer yet, but I don’t see the number of uninsured shrinking anytime soon. It’d be nice if our leaders started thinking about this.
David Perron
I’d agree with you in a heartbeat, JKC, if that fell under the responsibility of government. Since it doesn’t, though…you know where I’m going with this.
JKC
Dave-
I’ll respectfully disagree with you on that.
My parting shot is this: anyone promoting major healthcare system changes without discussing how to pay for them deserves to be called on it. (More) deficit spending will NOT solve this problem.
Kimmitt
Since everyone proposing a health care plan has attached a price tag to it and proposed rolling back the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts, I think your criterion is more or less covered.
Let’s keep in mind that we have an example of a state which did extend this kind of coverage and managed to keep a balanced budget, even a surplus.