The Benefits and/or Drawbacks of Socialized/Single Payer/Universal Healthcare.

[thoughtone]

My take on it is that it will work and that Social Security and Medicare was working prior to the Reagan Revolution. The graph below illustrates how the conservatives are trying to kill the economy so they can drain the government of its social safety net.

source: ZFacts.com

Question them, look them up and then show me yours.

The private sector is raping America while Bill Frist and others are reaping Billions. Health care is not free, but it can and must be cheaper and more accessible Check out these facts!

source: Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care



Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

 

[QueEx]

I thought a good starting point would be an "agreeable" definition and list of features of the various forms.

QueEx

 

[Fuckallyall]

If socialized medicine was such a good thing, why would Canada see the need to attempt to outlaw not being in the system as it tried to do with a few doctors who wanted to opt out back in 2004 ?

Look at the populations of the nations we are comparing. Does any of those populations compare to the huge influx of those who are unfamiliar with and unexposed to health maintainence ?

How about the fact that you get rationing of healthcare in countries that have universal healthcare ? or the delays in getting diagnosis and treatment ?

Why should I be forced to pay what you think I should pay for someone elses healthcare more than I do now ?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

How about the fact that you get rationing of healthcare in countries that have universal healthcare ? or the delays in getting diagnosis and treatment ?

As opposed to the delays of the uninsured who sit in emergency rooms for hours if they go at all.

 

[thoughtone]

I thought a good starting point would be an "agreeable" definition and list of features of the various forms.

QueEx

What? Just post your facts.

 

[thoughtone]

As opposed to the delays of the uninsured who sit in emergency rooms for hours if they go at all.

Like we (USA) don't have rationing.

 

[thoughtone]

If socialized medicine was such a good thing, why would Canada see the need to attempt to outlaw not being in the system as it tried to do with a few doctors who wanted to opt out back in 2004 ?

Look at the populations of the nations we are comparing. Does any of those populations compare to the huge influx of those who are unfamiliar with and unexposed to health maintainence ?

How about the fact that you get rationing of healthcare in countries that have universal healthcare ? or the delays in getting diagnosis and treatment ?

Why should I be forced to pay what you think I should pay for someone elses healthcare more than I do now ?

Because your paying any way when the uninsured use services in higher costs at the insurance companies rate.

 

[QueEx]

What? Just post your facts.

Don't be a complete idiot. I don't have any facts or plans to discuss, but if someone is going to have a debate, some of us, I presume, would like to know what the various proposals are and what they portend for beneficiaries and taxpayers, alike.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Many Eligible for Child Health Plan
Have No Idea </font size></center>

Cassie O. Hall’s children, Darren and Tayana, qualify for a plan that provides
subsidized insurance to families of the working poor. Photo by Jeremy M. Lange
for The New York Times



By KEVIN SACK
Published: August 22, 2007
GREENSBORO, N.C. — During the four years that her children were uninsured, Cassie O. Hall used the emergency room as their pediatrician. When Tayana had an asthma attack or Darren developed a stubborn rash, they would head to the hospital and settle in for a long wait.

The children never got physical exams or booster shots. And as the unpaid hospital bills stacked up, the threshold for a visit grew higher. “They would have to be half-dead before I would take them,” said Ms. Hall, a day care operator who could not afford private insurance.

It was only in May that Ms. Hall learned that her family qualified for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides subsidized insurance to children of the working poor. That she had never heard of the joint state and federal program made her typical of countless parents of the estimated eight million uninsured children.

Despite a decade of marketing efforts by governments and private foundations, nearly 30 percent of children who are eligible for the health insurance program and are not covered by private plans have yet to enroll, according to a new government study.

Late last week, the Bush administration published new standards intended to prevent states from expanding eligibility for the program to cover children from middle-class families. But a more fundamental debate over the program has been raging in Washington for months: how to find and enroll the 1.7 million low-income children who are already eligible but have not signed up.

That hard-to-reach population is the focus of a showdown over reauthorizing the 10-year-old program, the largest single extension of government-subsidized health insurance since the Great Society health initiatives of 1965.

The challenge of enrolling those already eligible demonstrates how difficult it will be for states to meet the new standards. The policy says that states can expand eligibility only if they have first enrolled 95 percent of those who now qualify. Few states have come close to doing that; the national enrollment rate in 2004-2005 was 72 percent, according to the study.

The Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed varying bills earlier this month that would vastly increase financing for the program, which expires on Sept. 30. Almost all of the new money would be dedicated to finding and covering children who are already eligible.

The federal government shares financing for the program with the states, picking up about 70 percent of total costs. The Senate measure would add an average of $7 billion a year to the $5 billion currently being spent. The House version is even richer, adding an average of $10 billion a year for five years.

President Bush, who proposed a much smaller increase of $1 billion a year, depicts both measures as a major step toward nationalized health coverage and has vowed to veto them.

Administration officials warn that the expansion envisioned by Congress would transform the program into a broad entitlement. Many families, they predict, would cancel private insurance in favor of government coverage (one study found that 14 percent of enrollees did).

Though eligibility varies by state, the 6.6 million children covered by the program typically come from families between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level (between $20,650 and $41,300 for a family of four). Another 29.5 million children, most living below the poverty line, are covered by Medicaid. Studies have found that about two-thirds of all uninsured children are eligible for one of the two programs.

There is little dispute among experts that the program has been instrumental in reducing the rate of uninsurance among low-income children by almost a third, even as the rate for adults has climbed. About 16 percent of children from families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level were without insurance in 2005, down from 23 percent in 1997, according to a federal government analysis.

But the persistence of so many children without insurance frustrates both policy experts and frontline social service workers.

“We’ve beat the bushes every which way but loose to find these kids,” said Janice G. Cardin, the supervisor here in Guilford County for North Carolina Health Choice, as the state’s program is called. “But we know there are still a lot of them out there.”

In this county, as across North Carolina, outreach workers are once again distributing fliers as school starts. They have used radio advertisements and refrigerator magnets, and have partnered with minority groups like Lumbee Indians and Hmong refugees.

They have staffed tables at health fairs and plants that are shedding workers. They have eliminated waiting periods, simplified application and income verification procedures, and provided translators to immigrants.

And yet, the rate of children without insurance in the state recently reversed course and began rising, to 12.5 percent in 2005 from 10.6 percent in 2004, according to the North Carolina Institute of Medicine. Though the Health Choice program now covers about 113,000 North Carolina children, the rate of uninsurance today is the same as in 1999.

Researchers at the Urban Institute, an independent group that studies economic and social issues, recently calculated that 5.4 million children nationwide were uncovered at some point each year despite being eligible for government insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office endorses the calculation.

But the Bush administration has embraced a finding by a different set of Urban Institute researchers that only 1.1 million children fall into that category, a figure based on those without insurance for an entire year.

“My perspective is that all states have been extremely successful, which is why we have so few left who are eligible but have not been found,” said Dennis G. Smith, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations.

As it is, administration officials say, the creation of the program, along with increased use of Medicaid and a decline in employer-based coverage, has resulted in a significant shift to government insurance. Forty-five percent of all children were covered by the insurance program or Medicaid in 2005, up from 28 percent in 1998, according to the Health and Human Services Department.

They are families like the Neelys of nearby High Point, N.C., a city still recovering from losses in its textile and furniture industries. After 15 years as an account manager for American Express, Cynthia L. Neely found herself laid off last December, and her husband could not afford his employer’s insurance.

Ms. Neely said she was relieved and surprised to learn this month that her 8-year-old son had qualified for Health Choice.

“I’ve worked since I was 15 and I never thought I would need this,” she said. “I always thought if you had any income at all in your household that you wouldn’t qualify.”

That misconception is among the obstacles to signing up children of working parents. For Hispanic parents, there may be barriers of language and immigration status. In other instances, parents may struggle with the stigmatizing perception that they might be taking welfare.

The Bush administration complains that many states have distorted the original intent of the program by raising eligibility limits to as high as 350 percent of poverty (New Jersey, with New York seeking federal approval to go to 400 percent).

Enrollment in the program grew rapidly in its early years, but slowed in 2003 and dipped briefly in 2004 before recovering the next year. Various studies have blamed state budget cuts for the slowdown, which prompted some states to restrict eligibility and make enrollment cumbersome. In North Carolina, budget-cutters temporarily froze Health Choice enrollment in 2001. In Texas, where one of every five children is uninsured, officials began requiring parents to requalify for the program every six months rather than annually.

But as fiscal pressures eased in the last two years, states have revived efforts to increase enrollment through measures like allowing applicants to mail in forms and requiring less documentation of income.

Cynthia Neely was surprised to learn that her son, Anthony, was eligible for coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/health/policy/22insure.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

 

[thoughtone]

These are the people you want to continue to run the health care of America, They say follow the money.

source: The New York Times.com

Chief Executive at Health Insurer Is Forced Out in Options Inquiry

By ERIC DASH and MILT FREUDENHEIM
Published: October 16, 2006
Dr. William W. McGuire, a medical entrepreneur who built the UnitedHealth Group into a colossus in its field, was forced to resign from the company yesterday and to give up a portion of the $1.1 billion he holds in harshly criticized stock options.

UnitedHealth, one of the nation’s two largest health insurers, also dismissed its general counsel and a member of its board in what amounted to a sweeping overhaul of its governance practices and leadership ranks. The options that Dr. McGuire had been granted over the years have led to criminal and civil investigations and public disapproval.

In a sweeping report released yesterday that was highly critical of management, a law firm hired by UnitedHealth to investigate the timing of stock options concluded that the company was riddled with poor controls and conflicts of interest. The report, which the company posted on its Web site, found that UnitedHealth had backdated options to maximize employees’ compensation.

The company said yesterday that the disputed options would be repriced from the lowest share price for the years in question to the highest prices, scaling back the earnings of Dr. McGuire and others. The company did not say precisely how much its executives would give up.

The developments are the most dramatic to date since federal regulators started looking into the widespread practice of backdating stock options. More than 100 companies have come under scrutiny over the unlikely coincidence of stock options being granted again and again to senior executives on dates when the company’s share price was low, a tactic that guaranteed the maximum profit when the options were turned into cash.

Executives at several companies have already been forced to resign, and at UnitedHealth Group, it was announced that five other directors would be forced out over the next three years.

At UnitedHealth, there was significant evidence that options were backdated for employees at all levels of the company between 1994 and 2002. But among the most substantial and egregious, according to the law firm’s report, were those awarded to Dr. McGuire, the company’s longtime chairman and chief executive. Of the 12 options grants issued to Dr. McGuire, three just happened to be priced at the stock’s lowest price that year.

The Justice Department, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service are all investigating UnitedHealth’s options practices.

Most of the companies implicated in backdating controversies so far are Silicon Valley start-ups or firms with technology roots, where options with favorable dates were considered a recruitment tool in the dot-com boom. UnitedHealth, which has a market capitalization of $66 billion, is one of the few large blue-chip companies to stumble over the issue, and its problems underscore how prevalent the practice has been. Scrutiny over backdating also comes at a time of increasingly loud criticism of excesses of executive pay.

At UnitedHealth, even the man named to replace Dr. McGuire as chief executive has been a beneficiary of backdated options: Stephen J. Hemsley, who has been Dr. McGuire’s top lieutenant, will lose a sizable portion of his options, the company said.

“Mr. Hemsley has voluntarily agreed to reprice all options awarded through 2002 to the annual high share price for each year, and to take any other appropriate action to eliminate any possible financial benefit from options-related issues,” UnitedHealth said. Other senior UnitedHealth executives, including Dr. McGuire and the resigning general counsel, David J. Lubben, will take similar actions, the company said.

In a lengthy and somewhat contrite statement after a board meeting yesterday, UnitedHealth announced that it would take a series of steps recommended by an outside law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, which had been hired by a special committee of UnitedHealth directors. The seven-month investigation led to a showdown that ended late yesterday after Dr. McGuire and the UnitedHealth board was presented with the findings.

In their report, investigators from Wilmer Cutler found that “most of the 29 stock grants” that accounted for nearly 450 million stock options that the company awarded between 1994 and 2002 “were likely backdated.”

The report also found that a grant of one million stock options to Dr. McGuire and 500,000 options awarded to Mr. Hemsley in connection with their 1999 employment contract were probably backdated. But the company’s outside investigators appeared to clear Mr. Hemsley, finding that he “had little or no role in the negotiation of, or the process leading up to, the option award” related to the contract.

Investigators, moreover, painted a picture of “inadequate” internal controls and a senior management team that failed to set an appropriate tone at the top. But the report attempted to clear the directors on the compensation committee of any legal wrongdoing. “The directors were entitled to presume that matters brought before them for action were procedurally proper and consistent with applicable legal and accounting standards,” the report concludes.

The report also said that the financial relationships between Dr. McGuire and the board member who resigned yesterday, William G. Spears, who headed the board’s compensation committee when Dr. McGuire’s employment agreement was negotiated in 1999, “created a conflict of interest.” Mr. Spears served as a trustee for two trusts for Dr. McGuire’s children and managed as much as $55 million of Dr. McGuire’s money. He also managed millions of dollars managed for Mr. Hemsley.

Acting on the law firm’s recommendations, the board said it would replace, within three years, all of the directors on its compensation committee who had approved the improper options. The company also said it would create new senior executive posts to oversee ethics and compensation.

Dr. McGuire, an internist and lung specialist, will not leave empty-handed: he will still take home hundreds of millions of dollars from stock options. Over his 18 years at UnitedHealth, he banked more than a half billion dollars. UnitedHealth said last night that it was still negotiating whether he would receive a $5.1 million a year pension, which is called for in his employment contract.

Dr. McGuire is by far the best known, most powerful and most richly compensated business leader to be toppled by challenges to pay packages that were inflated by stock options based on favorable, low purchase dates. Options are typically granted at the current market price of the stock, to avoid adverse tax and accounting consequences.

Options-dating issues led to the resignation from the Apple Computer board two weeks ago of Fred D. Anderson of a former chief financial officer of Apple, but the company said that Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple, had not benefited from improper equity awards.

The United Health board faced formidable challenges at its meeting yesterday. Dr. McGuire is a superstar executive with one of the best track records in American business, and losing him could undermine the confidence of Wall Street investors. The statement released by UnitedHealth, which is based in Minneapolis, pointed out that under Dr. McGuire’s leadership, the company’s stock price had risen by almost 8,500 percent.

But not acting posed considerable legal and financial risks for the company and the directors themselves. For some compensation committee members who remain on the board, ousting Dr. McGuire over stock option improprieties might mean implicating themselves.

Wall Street analysts said investors, who have driven down United’s stock price by more than 20 percent this year, are likely to be jolted by the departure of the widely admired Dr. McGuire but may be reassured by the promotion of Mr. Hemsley, “the guy who makes things happen” at the company, said Sheryl Skolnick, a health care analyst at the CRT Capital Group.

The uproar over backdating erupted at a time when dozens of companies were forced to restate earnings to reflect option awards, under new accounting rules. UnitedHealth said in May that restating could cut as much as $286 million from profits for 2003, 2004 and last year.

The Justice Department has brought charges against officers at two companies — Brocade Communications and Comverse Technology — over options backdating, and with dozens of cases under review, more charges could be on the way. Boards, meanwhile, have forced out more than two-dozen executives, including five in the past week. And scores of companies are rushing to restate their results in time for this quarter’s earnings, so they do not face legal and financial exposure for additional delays.

In an apparent effort to get ahead of the official investigators, in March, a special committee of UnitedHealth’s independent directors began examining the 45,000 separate stock option grants made to company employees. The following month, the committee hired William R. McLucas, a former S.E.C. enforcement director, and his team of investigators, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, to lead the review.

There are also questions about the an unusual clause woven into Dr. McGuire’s 1999 employment contract that allowed him to choose the grant date of his stock options by providing “oral notification” to the human resources or compensation committee chair. While there is nothing illegal about such a provision, compensation specialists say the practice could lead to abuse. The clause was eliminated last year.

Most analysts have continued to recommend the stock during its slide, but Matthew Borsch, who follows UnitedHealth at Goldman Sachs, predicted that United’s share price “will fall further now with the certainty of Dr. McGuire’s departure.”

Ms. Skolnick or CRT Capital Group had other concerns. She said the changes announced yesterday were “good” but added that “the scary thing” was the possibility that past stock-dating practices may still lead to costly penalties. “I worry that something bad must have happened,” she said.

 

[thoughtone]

Even the former head of the Senate.

source: Washington Post.com

SEC Issues Subpoena To Frist, Sources Say
Records Sought On Sale of Stock

By Carrie Johnson and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 13, 2005; A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been subpoenaed to turn over personal records and documents as federal authorities step up a probe of his July sales of HCA Inc. stock, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the subpoena within the past two weeks, after initial reports that Frist, the Senate's top Republican official, was under scrutiny by the agency and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading laws.

Frist aides previously said he had been contacted by regulators but did not mention that the lawmaker had received a formal request for documents. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the investigation, said Frist is expected to testify under oath about what he knew about the company's health in the weeks before he sold stock. Frist has told reporters that he did nothing wrong and that he directed the sale to eliminate potential conflicts as he considered a 2008 presidential bid.

The formal request for documents usually presages an acceleration of a federal probe. In Frist's case, regulators had to proceed with caution due to his status in Congress and their mutual desire to avoid triggering constitutional objections to the release of documents. The disclosure of the subpoena comes as Democrats blasted Frist anew for his financial and personal ties to Hospital Corporation of America, a Nashville chain founded in 1968 by his father and his brother, Thomas Frist Jr. Critics yesterday seized on a report that Frist held a substantial amount of his family's hospital stock outside of blind trusts between 1998 and 2002 -- a time when he asserted he did not know how much of the stock he owned.

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that Frist earned tens of thousands of dollars from HCA stock in a partnership controlled by his brother, outside of the blind trusts he created to avoid a conflict of interest.

"It seems that for years, Frist may have misled his constituents and the American people about his health care industry stock holdings and the conflict of interest they created as he drafted our nation's health care policy," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "This deal raises even more questions about the Republican culture of corruption in Washington, D.C."

During his decade in the Senate, Frist has been active in shaping health care policy, including creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Republican ethics lawyer Jan W. Baran also scored Frist for his handling of his trusts. "This shows Senator Frist's capacity for clumsiness and bad timing," Baran said. "He was trying to insulate himself from political charges and now finds himself trying to defend himself because of the transparency of his holdings."

The subpoena for documents related to the July stock sales was written carefully to avoid asking for documents related directly to Frist's legislative actions, according to sources. By keeping the request focused on his personal activities, experts said, the SEC avoided raising objections from Senate lawyers who might otherwise have fought the request on the grounds of constitutional separation of powers.

The wording in the subpoena also ensured that Frist did not have to tell colleagues about the document request or to otherwise involve them in the investigation, congressional aides said.

The executive branch is prohibited from seeking documents or testimony that relate to "legislative acts and the motivation for the performance of legislative acts," said Kenneth Gross of Skadden Arps, an ethics law expert. The ban is part of what is called the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause, which insulates Congress from unwarranted intrusions by the executive branch of government. Writing a subpoena that does not run afoul of the clause -- and also possibly trigger a public disclosure of the subpoena -- required careful work.

"There are some gray areas, clearly, and it could be tricky," said Baran, of Wiley Rein & Fielding. Members of the House of Representatives must disclose to the full House when they are subpoenaed. The Senate has its own rules that sometimes require the body to deal with subpoenas, experts say, but the Frist subpoena apparently has not triggered any of them.

A spokesman for Frist said yesterday: "As we have indicated, Senator Frist has been fully cooperating with the authorities conducting the inquiries and will continue to do so, including keeping our public comments to a minimum. The issuance of a subpoena would be an expected and normal part of that process."

Within days of Frist's July stock sale, HCA warned investors about weaker-than-expected financial performance, which sent the stock price spiraling downward by 9 percent in one day. Frist may have begun the process of selling the stock April 29, months before the company's troubles were clear, according to e-mail messages between the Tennessee Republican, his chief counsel and his personal accountant that were reviewed by The Washington Post.

Former SEC enforcement chief and retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin said the agency has a "rich history" of probing officials at the highest level -- from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to Carter administration budget chief Bert Lance.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a former House GOP member from California, has removed himself from hearing evidence on or voting on the case, citing his ties to Frist.

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Romney unveils national healthcare plan</font size></center>[

By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday will propose doing for the country what he did as governor of Massachusetts — helping the uninsured get health insurance — while also working to curb soaring health care costs even for those with coverage.

``We're going to make health insurance affordable. We're going to get on track to have every citizen insured. And we're going to reduce the rate of growth in health care spending,'' Romney said in an exclusive interview with McClatchy Newspapers previewing the proposal that he'll unveil Friday in a speech to the Florida Medical Association.

With it, he hopes to capitalize on a signature accomplishment as governor and play it to his advantage in his race for the Republican presidential nomination. Neither of his top rivals — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — can boast of similar success on health care.

He also wants to stake a claim on a domestic issue raised far more frequently by Democratic voters and embraced more enthusiastically by Democratic candidates back to Harry Truman.

``I don't think health care can be left to the Democrats,'' Romney said, stressing that his party should not cede domestic issues to the Democrats. ``The Republican Party would be making a tremendous mistake thinking health care, education or the environment are Democratic issues.''

He lambasted Democratic health care proposals as ``knee-jerk, single-payer'' policies run by the federal government. He said Republicans should fight back with ``free market" proposals.

His own plan is a blend of tax incentives, creative financing to help the uninsured without raising taxes or federal spending, and a state-based system that would depend on governors to fix the country's health-care problems.

Romney insisted his plan would eventually help everyone get insurance. But he will not propose requiring everyone in the country to get insurance — as he did in Massachusetts.

``We'll get all the way there, but it's not through a mandate,'' he said. ``If some states were going to drag their heels, I'm not going to have the federal government step in.''

To help control costs, Romney would allow all Americans to deduct from their taxable income all of their health-care costs — including premiums and most out-of-pocket spending. Now, only people with a lot of expenses can deduct the cost from their taxable income.

That, said Romney, would provide a tax incentive to buy high-deductible, low- premium health-care plans. And that, he said, would lead people to spend less and make better, cheaper choices in buying health care. Overall spending on health care would drop by 6.2 percent, he estimated.

``You get better behavior in health care,'' he said.

To help the uninsured, Romney would provide a package aimed at helping some people into existing government programs, driving down the costs of private health insurance and subsidies.

Romney aides broke the uninsured into three groups:

_About 15 million already eligible for government coverage under programs such as Medicaid or the SCHIP program.

His plan would make it easier for states to cover those people, in part by turning Medicaid into a block grant with federal regulations and restrictions removed;

_12 million low-income people.

His proposal would help them buy privately purchased insurance by diverting up to $35 billion a year now spent by state and federal governments to pay emergency room bills for the uninsured;

_18 million middle-income people who for various reasons choose not to buy insurance.

Romney would help lower private health-care premiums by working with states to cut regulations. Giving them a tax break on the cost of their premiums would draw as many as 6 million into buying insurance at a cost to the Treasury of about $6 billion a year, his aides estimated.

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/19174.html

 

[QueEx]

Does anybody know what the Massachusetts experience has been ???

 

[thoughtone]

source: opinionjournal.com

Republican Rot
Is Congress's GOP majority becoming as corrupt as the Democrats were?

Monday, February 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

One way you can tell that Republicans have become the dominant political party in Washington is to watch them cash in.

Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana has announced that next Monday he will step down as chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Observers expect he will soon leave Congress to become the chief lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry at an annual salary that's rumored to approach $2.5 million, a record for a trade association head. Mr. Tauzin isn't doing anything illegal, but what's good for him isn't good for the country or for the Republican Party. Their voters are already showing signs of concern that congressional Republicans are taking on the bad habits of the Democrats they ousted from power in 1994.

House Democrats finished their annual three-day retreat at the Homstead Resort in Virginia on Saturday. Among the topics they discussed was how to exploit the perception that Mr. Tauzin was being paid off for steering the Medicare prescription drug bill through Congress only two months ago, legislation Democrats say will be a big boon to drug companies. "If you want to know the price of selling seniors down the river," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters, "it's approximately $2 million a year, if you want to hire the manager of the bill on the floor of the House." It doesn't help that Mr. Tauzin already has a wheeler-dealer image or that some House Democrats are still bitter with him for abandoning their caucus after more than 15 years to become a Republican in 1995.


Mr. Tauzin's office insists he is stepping down mainly for health reasons; he is 60 years old and was recently hospitalized for a bleeding ulcer. But his sudden interest in the top job at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as Pharma, looks unseemly when the ink is barely dry on the massive prescription drug law. Only last month, he turned down an offer of more than $1 million a year from the Motion Picture Association of America, the film industry's lobbying arm. That would have been a much less controversial soft landing.
Some Republicans fear that Mr. Tauzin has sped up Washington's infamous "revolving door" between Congress and the K Street lobbying shops to a point that could hurt the public perception of Congress. Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, head of the House Republican Conference, admitted to reporters last month that she is worried the Tauzin job offer will make it easier for Democrats to bash the GOP as a tool of pharmaceutical companies. While Mr. Tauzin would be barred from lobbying members of Congress for a year after he leaves office, nothing prevents him from sitting down with executive branch officials with suggestions on how they might draft the drug bill's regulations.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was one of only 25 GOP House members to vote against the Medicare bill, says Democratic colleagues have told him that the two major reasons they lost control of the House to the GOP in 1994 were the reckless liberalism of the Clinton administration during its first two years and "the Jim Wright and House Bank scandals that convinced people that Democrats were looking out for themselves first. For our own good, I hope we don't fall into that trap."

He and other members say Mr. Tauzin's jackpot couldn't have come at a worse time. Last week, the House Ethics Committee revealed that for the past two months it has been investigating an allegation by Rep. Nick Smith, a Michigan Republican, that party leaders offered him a bribe in exchange for his vote on the Medicare bill. Mr. Smith voted against the bill and later said unnamed members of his party had said they'd contribute $100,000 to his son's congressional campaign if he had voted in favor. If not, Mr. Smith said, they told him they'd see that the younger Mr. Smith lost his race. Mr. Smith later recanted, saying his claim of bribery was "technically inaccurate" and has since refused to discuss the matter further.

But other GOP members stood by their stories of strong-arm tactics. South Carolina's Rep. Jim DeMint said contributors threatened to withhold donations for his upcoming Senate race unless he voted for the Medicare bill, while Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri said a state legislator threatened to run against him. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida was told his path towards a party leadership position would be blocked if he voted against the bill.


Republicans should view such tactics and the bidding war for Mr. Tauzin on K Street as warning signs of ideological dry rot. No matter how well gerrymandered their districts, the GOP majority could be in jeopardy if it develops the same reputation for ruthlessness and selfishness that burdened the Democrats in the early 1990s.
If Republicans consolidate their control over Washington while failing to reduce the size of government, they will inevitably be caught up in the care and feeding of the state. Industries that want favors or protection from government will seek out and hire powerful people to move the levers of power. F.A. Hayek warned decades ago against the dangers of a creeping corporate welfare state: "As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of the directing power."

K Street is beginning to fill up with Republican lobbyists as companies realize the near-monopoly that Democrats had on lobbying jobs no longer makes sense. Lobbying is becoming a family affair. At least 17 current senators and 11 House members have had close relatives working in lobbying or government relations.

Some Republican lobbyists pride themselves on advocating free markets and deregulation, but too often they also take on questionable projects. Before he became chairman of the Republican National Committee last year, Ed Gillespie ran a lobbying practice with former Clinton White House counsel Jack Quinn. They successfully pushed for tariff protections for American steel makers, an economic and foreign-policy disaster President Bush had to pull the plug on last year. Former Rep. Vin Weber has successfully held up the deregulation agenda of FCC Chairman Michael Powell. GOP lobbyists respond that they are only following in the footsteps of Democrats such as Reps. John Dingell and Tony Coelho who in the 1980s perfected the cozy connections between Capitol Hill and K Street.

Naturally, liberal newspapers and ethics watchdog groups propose to deal with the Tauzin problem with new restrictions on lobbying. One sensible idea is to extend to departing members of Congress the yearlong ban on lobbying executive branch officials that already applies to congressional staffers. Other proposed rules are probably unworkable. The Los Angeles Times suggests that lawmakers be banned from direct lobbying for three years and also not be allowed to negotiate a new job while they're still in office. Bob Livingston, the former Appropriations Committee chairman who now operates one of Washington's most popular lobbying shops, says such rules are impractical and would prevent qualified people from seeking seats in Congress "because they won't be able to provide financial security for their families after leaving office."

The problem is that voters have never felt that Congress should be a stepping stone for lucrative postretirement careers. Every few years someone conspicuously crosses an unseen line and rubs the face of the American people in the seamy side of Washington influence peddling. In the 1980s, an infamous Time cover photo of former Reagan White House aide Mike Deaver making lobbying calls from his car led to public outrage and Mr. Deaver's indictment on charges that he lied to a grand jury, He was fined $100,000 and required to complete 1,500 hours of community service. In 2001, President Clinton's midnight pardons of disgraced financier Marc Rich and others confirmed the worst suspicions of many about his character.


Mr. Tauzin's transgression isn't in that league, but blogger Mickey Kaus nonetheless writes that it "provides a Washington scandal that virtually everyone in the press can feel righteous about playing up. Meanwhile, what pol is going to risk his or her neck to defend a once-powerful Congressman who has given up his power."
There is a strong chance that the Tauzin scandal--coupled with the Nick Smith bribery controversy--will only build in coming days. The fear of that may be why Pharma is taking a wait and see attitude towards formally signing up Mr. Tauzin. Rumors have it that internal memos from the pharmaceutical industry that refer to Mr. Tauzin as someone who will always do the industry's bidding may be leaked to the media by his jealous colleagues.

But this political firestorm may die out if Pharma executives realize that Mr. Tauzin is already damaged and thus would be less effective as a lobbyist. Mr. Tauzin ought to be in pictures; the MPAA's offer was quite generous. If he insists on pursuing the drug industry's even more lucrative deal he will only create headaches and embarrassment for all concerned.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

I've lived in Canada all of my life so I've seen both sides of the equasion. The plus side is that under this system I'm able to buy my medical insurance from the government for about $56 a month. If I get stabbed or suffer a heart attack I don't have to worry about about the medical costs bankrupting me.

There are some downsides though. For one there is a definate shortage of doctors. The government also affects the amount of health care a person can get by enforcing caps and quotas. I used to work a job where I got off at 7pm. Once when I had to see a doctor I spent nearly an hour going from clinic to clinic trying to find one that hadn't seen its quota of patients. When my marriage broke up and I sought out counseling to get my head together it took almost 3 months to get an appointment. There is also a shortage of equipment. I know a borderline terminal leukemia patient that had to wait on a 6 month waiting list just to get an MRI done.

That being said the system is not totally free here. Preventitive medicine is generally not covered. Most dental proceedures are not covered. Neither is the cost of medication (although it is a lot cheaper than it is in the USA since the government buys in bulk). Glasses, alternative therapies (including chiropractic vistits) are not covered either.

So basically it's a mixed blessing.

 

[thoughtone]

I used to work a job where I got off at 7pm. Once when I had to see a doctor I spent nearly an hour going from clinic to clinic trying to find one that hadn't seen its quota of patients. When my marriage broke up and I sought out counseling to get my head together it took almost 3 months to get an appointment. There is also a shortage of equipment. I know a borderline terminal leukemia patient that had to wait on a 6 month waiting list just to get an MRI done

I use to work for a large aerospace/defense company (the largest). I got sever pneumonia and needed a lung operation. With all of my incredible health insurance, I had to wait hours in the waiting room to get examined. After about two weeks and 4 specialists, they finally diagnosed my illness. Waiting in the United States for proper service is not uncommon, unless you are wealthy enough to have a private doctor on retainer.

 

[QueEx]

TO,

Are you sure only the wealthy have private doctors? Don't you have a doctor that you or your family sees on a regular basis? I'm not throwing bricks here; but a whole lot of people I know have private doctors and they are no where near being wealthy. Not only do you get the typical O.V.; if you've got an emergency they also make referrals, and meet you or have someone else see you at the hospital in an emergency. Now, the wait time, whether on an office visit or otherwise can be longer than one would prefer - but everyone wants to be seen right-now.

My office and several of my larger clients have BCBS which encourages the use of private doctors - as seeing one instead of heading to ER with things that don't really need to be treated there or could have been less extensive had there been preventive care tends to lower the claims experience and, therefore, the premiums.

QueEx

 

[Dannyblueyes]

I agree. Having a private family doctor does make a lot of sense. What makes it more difficult under Canada's socialized medicine plan is that the government pays doctors a flat rate for every patient they see. From a doctor's perspective that makes a lot more financial sense to see as many patients as humanly possible than it does to be selective. The faster you can fill your quota the less overhead you have to pay on your clinic.

To make matters worse the payout is a flat rate. That means a doctor makes the same amount treating a serious illness or medical condition as he does over frivilous bullshit. For instance you have women who come in for a pregnancy test because they're too damn cheap to shell out $10 for a home pregnancy test. You also have asthmatics who will go into an ER with mild attacks in hopes of geting a doctor to give up a free inhaler.

It aslo gives doctors more of an incentive to perscribe questionable drugs to a patient. They know that if they get you to take them they have a way to get your business every month.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4"><center>47 Million Americans Without Health Insurance, Census Report</font size></center>

Medical News Today
29 Aug 2007

A report by the US Census Bureau this week shows that household income is up, the poverty rate is slightly down for the first time this decade, but the number of people without health insurance went up by 0.5 per cent to reach 47 million in 2006.

The Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 report draws on information collected in two surveys: the 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).

There has been a strong reaction to the report, with the presidential elections coming up next year, the New York Times describes it as a "presidential candidate's gold mine", with the main focus being on the fact that 47 million Americans still have no health insurance and the proportion of children with no health insurance has risen, with the poorest children the most likely to be uninsured.

This has boosted calls by many candidates to bring more people into the government scheme. Recently the government based schemes have received wide support in Congress even though President Bush has promised to veto any legislation that expands them.

Bush chose to highlight the fact the report shows American household income is rising and poverty is going down albeit only slightly and only for the first time this decade. He conceded however that there remains a challenge to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance, choosing to stress that the best route to this is to make it more affordable rather than bring more into the government scheme.

According to the report, real household income in the US rose by 0.7 per cent from 47,845 dollars in 2005 to 48,201 dollars in 2006 (based on the median figure, a kind of average that pinpoints the middle of the range from the highest to the lowest). This is the second consecutive year the figure has gone up.

This is in contrast to the decrease in real median earnings of both men and women who work full time all year round. This went down in 2006 compared to 2005 by 1.1 and 1.2 per cent respectively. The downward trend in real median earnings for this group has now gone down three years in a row.

Women are still earning less that men on average and the ratio of female to male earnings stayed at 0.77 between 2005 and 2006. This figure hovered at around 0.6 from 1960 to 1980 and climbed steadily in the 25 or so years since.

In terms of income per head of the population, this went up between 2005 and 2006 for all race groups and Hispanics, with Asians showing the largest increase.

The official poverty rate has fallen from 12.6 per cent in 2005 (37.4 million people) to 12.3 per cent in 2006 (36.5 million). This is the first time it has fallen this decade.

More recently, in 2000 the poverty rate stood at 11.3 per cent, then rose to 12.1 and 12.5 per cent in 2002 and 2003.

The poverty rate and numbers in poverty for the under 18s have remained statistically unchanged between 2005 and 2006 (17.4 per cent and 12.8 million), as they have for the 18 to 64 year olds (10.8 per cent and 20.2 million). However there is better news for seniors, both the poverty rate and the number in poverty have gone down for the over 64 year olds, from 10.1 per cent (3.6 million) in 2005 to 9.4 per cent (3.4 million) in 2006.

The income and poverty estimates do not include the value of non cash benefits such as food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, public housing and fringe benefits from employers. Alternative measures of income and poverty that show the effect of taxes and certain non cash benefits will be published later said the report.

Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance coverage went up from 15.3 per cent in 2005 (44.8 million) to 15.8 per cent (47 million) in 2006. This figure has been rising gradually by one or two tenths of a per cent for the last 20 years according to the graph shown in the report.

Within these figures, the proportion covered by employment based schemes went down from 60.2 per cent in 2005 to 59.7 per cent in 2006, as did the proportion covered by government schemes which decreased from 27.3 per cent in 2005 to 27.0 per cent in 2006.

The percentage and number of children under 18 who are not insured has gone up from 10.9 per cent (8.0 million) in 2005 to 11.7 per cent (8.7 million) in 2006. With 19.3 per cent of children in poverty having no insurance, this puts the chances of a child in poverty of having no health insurance at a higher rate than all children in the population.

However, the number of people with health insurance also went up from 249.0 million in 2005 to 249.8 million in 2006, which is possible at the same time as the rise in numbers without health insurance because the US population is expanding.

Within these figures there are variations across demographic groups. For instance, the median incomes of white households went up in 2006 compared to 2005, but stayed the same for other races and Hispanics. The poverty rate went down for Hispanics, but remained the same for non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks and Asians. The proportion of people with no health insurance went up for Hispanics, down for Asians and stayed the same for non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks.

Also published this week is the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS), which covers states and metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas with populations of 65,000 or higher, and all congressional districts. And for the first time the report covers groups such as prisoners, students living in college dorms, serving men and women living in military barracks and residents of nursing homes.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php

 

[bromack1]

<font size="4"><center>47 Million Americans Without Health Insurance, Census Report</font size></center>

Medical News Today
29 Aug 2007

A report by the US Census Bureau this week shows that household income is up, the poverty rate is slightly down for the first time this decade, but the number of people without health insurance went up by 0.5 per cent to reach 47 million in 2006.

The Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 report draws on information collected in two surveys: the 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).

There has been a strong reaction to the report, with the presidential elections coming up next year, the New York Times describes it as a "presidential candidate's gold mine", with the main focus being on the fact that 47 million Americans still have no health insurance and the proportion of children with no health insurance has risen, with the poorest children the most likely to be uninsured.

This has boosted calls by many candidates to bring more people into the government scheme. Recently the government based schemes have received wide support in Congress even though President Bush has promised to veto any legislation that expands them.

Bush chose to highlight the fact the report shows American household income is rising and poverty is going down albeit only slightly and only for the first time this decade. He conceded however that there remains a challenge to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance, choosing to stress that the best route to this is to make it more affordable rather than bring more into the government scheme.

According to the report, real household income in the US rose by 0.7 per cent from 47,845 dollars in 2005 to 48,201 dollars in 2006 (based on the median figure, a kind of average that pinpoints the middle of the range from the highest to the lowest). This is the second consecutive year the figure has gone up.

This is in contrast to the decrease in real median earnings of both men and women who work full time all year round. This went down in 2006 compared to 2005 by 1.1 and 1.2 per cent respectively. The downward trend in real median earnings for this group has now gone down three years in a row.

Women are still earning less that men on average and the ratio of female to male earnings stayed at 0.77 between 2005 and 2006. This figure hovered at around 0.6 from 1960 to 1980 and climbed steadily in the 25 or so years since.

In terms of income per head of the population, this went up between 2005 and 2006 for all race groups and Hispanics, with Asians showing the largest increase.

The official poverty rate has fallen from 12.6 per cent in 2005 (37.4 million people) to 12.3 per cent in 2006 (36.5 million). This is the first time it has fallen this decade.

More recently, in 2000 the poverty rate stood at 11.3 per cent, then rose to 12.1 and 12.5 per cent in 2002 and 2003.

The poverty rate and numbers in poverty for the under 18s have remained statistically unchanged between 2005 and 2006 (17.4 per cent and 12.8 million), as they have for the 18 to 64 year olds (10.8 per cent and 20.2 million). However there is better news for seniors, both the poverty rate and the number in poverty have gone down for the over 64 year olds, from 10.1 per cent (3.6 million) in 2005 to 9.4 per cent (3.4 million) in 2006.

The income and poverty estimates do not include the value of non cash benefits such as food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, public housing and fringe benefits from employers. Alternative measures of income and poverty that show the effect of taxes and certain non cash benefits will be published later said the report.

Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance coverage went up from 15.3 per cent in 2005 (44.8 million) to 15.8 per cent (47 million) in 2006. This figure has been rising gradually by one or two tenths of a per cent for the last 20 years according to the graph shown in the report.

Within these figures, the proportion covered by employment based schemes went down from 60.2 per cent in 2005 to 59.7 per cent in 2006, as did the proportion covered by government schemes which decreased from 27.3 per cent in 2005 to 27.0 per cent in 2006.

The percentage and number of children under 18 who are not insured has gone up from 10.9 per cent (8.0 million) in 2005 to 11.7 per cent (8.7 million) in 2006. With 19.3 per cent of children in poverty having no insurance, this puts the chances of a child in poverty of having no health insurance at a higher rate than all children in the population.

However, the number of people with health insurance also went up from 249.0 million in 2005 to 249.8 million in 2006, which is possible at the same time as the rise in numbers without health insurance because the US population is expanding.

Within these figures there are variations across demographic groups. For instance, the median incomes of white households went up in 2006 compared to 2005, but stayed the same for other races and Hispanics. The poverty rate went down for Hispanics, but remained the same for non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks and Asians. The proportion of people with no health insurance went up for Hispanics, down for Asians and stayed the same for non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks.

Also published this week is the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS), which covers states and metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas with populations of 65,000 or higher, and all congressional districts. And for the first time the report covers groups such as prisoners, students living in college dorms, serving men and women living in military barracks and residents of nursing homes.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php

Sure, we can throw a lot of numbers around and say that too many people don't have health insurance.

But the question still remains, what are people gonna get. A free or low cost trip to the hospital doesn't mean the government is gonna reduce the number of people who deal with ongoing health problems.

My concern is, the government will increase its influence over "lifestyle" decisions. If your daily diet consists of greasy and fatty foods, then the government can easily make standards regulating your food choices. For example, If you wanna do that... then you get no government coverage.

Even today, the whole issue of trans fatty greases is a decision or change being borne more between private industry and insurance companies.

What if you like smokin pot every day...should the government "regulate" or deny you a certain amount of coverage because of the inherent effects of inhaling carcinogens.

Keep in mind, the government makes its rules according to "one size fits all."
I'm sure they will have room for exceptions, but in the end... it only means you will have to wait a little longer for "funding" or the necessary approvals to be made. That logic doesn't work all the time when you're dealing with a medical emergency.

BTW... the infant mortality rate is lower in countries like Cuba. But what they don't tell you is, Cuba also has one of the highest abortion rates in the western hemisphere. Isn't that another way to explain cost/benefit.

 

[Temujin]

America already has a single payer health care system called medicare and medicaid. Creating national healthcare would be as easy as extending coverage to all Americans. Of course this would cost more tax dollars but I doubt in totallity it would be more then what we currently pay.

I see both sides since I pay employees so I pay substantially into the medicare system and most of the revenues for my company come from medicaid clients. Since companies in America pay half of the money into the medicare system currently. As an employer I would be happy for a single payer system. The costs we pay currently for healthcare for our employees is almost double our medicare company contributions.

On the other hand I do see the ineffeciencies in the medicare and medicaid system. To me however most of those ineffeciencies are due to state or federal providers of services. If all provision of services under the system where private and the federal and state government only regulated the quality of care and the funding then I believe a national system would be very effective and beneficial to the public as well as to corporations.

 

[Temujin]

Sure, we can throw a lot of numbers around and say that too many people don't have health insurance.

But the question still remains, what are people gonna get. A free or low cost trip to the hospital doesn't mean the government is gonna reduce the number of people who deal with ongoing health problems.

My concern is, the government will increase its influence over "lifestyle" decisions. If your daily diet consists of greasy and fatty foods, then the government can easily make standards regulating your food choices. For example, If you wanna do that... then you get no government coverage.

Even today, the whole issue of trans fatty greases is a decision or change being borne more between private industry and insurance companies.

What if you like smokin pot every day...should the government "regulate" or deny you a certain amount of coverage because of the inherent effects of inhaling carcinogens.

Keep in mind, the government makes its rules according to "one size fits all."
I'm sure they will have room for exceptions, but in the end... it only means you will have to wait a little longer for "funding" or the necessary approvals to be made. That logic doesn't work all the time when you're dealing with a medical emergency.

BTW... the infant mortality rate is lower in countries like Cuba. But what they don't tell you is, Cuba also has one of the highest abortion rates in the western hemisphere. Isn't that another way to explain cost/benefit.

What you describe doesn't currently happen in America. If you get shot selling crack you can still go to the emergency room. If you are disabled from a self inflicted gun-shot wound you still get medicaid. If you have a mental disability from years of cocaine abuse you still get medical subsidies from the government. Very poor people in America have access to health care it is the semi-poor that have trouble. The type of government intervention you describe is highly unlikely.

 

[bromack1]

What you describe doesn't currently happen in America. If you get shot selling crack you can still go to the emergency room. If you are disabled from a self inflicted gun-shot wound you still get medicaid. If you have a mental disability from years of cocaine abuse you still get medical subsidies from the government. Very poor people in America have access to health care it is the semi-poor that have trouble. The type of government intervention you describe is highly unlikely.

Thoughtful response.... You're correct in saying low income people already have access to health care. In this whole discussion, that point is never fully disclosed.


As you point out, "quality" of healthcare is not equally distributed. Thats the problem. My only point is in making sure there is a reasonable evaluation of cost/benefit.

 

[thoughtone]

This is the real fight.

 

[QueEx]

Health Insurers Blacklist Millions

<font size="5"><center>
Insurers shun those taking certain meds</font size><font size="4">
Health insurers secretly blacklist those with certain ailments</font size></center>


Miami Herald
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
March 28, 2009


Trying to buy health insurance on your own and have gallstones? You'll automatically be denied coverage.

Rheumatoid arthritis? Automatic denial.

Severe acne? Probably denied.

Do you take metformin, a popular drug for diabetes? Denied.

Use the anti-clotting drug Plavix or Seroquel, prescribed for anti-psychotic or sleep problems? Forget about it.


This confidential information on some insurers' practices is available on the Web -- if you know where to look.

What's more, you can discover that if you lie to an insurer about your medical history and drug use, you will be rejected because data-mining companies sell information to insurers about your health, including detailed usage of prescription drugs.

These issues are moving to the forefront as the Obama administration and Congress gear up for discussions about how to reform the healthcare system so that Americans won't be rejected for insurance.

It's especially timely because growing numbers are looking for individual health insurance after losing their jobs. On top of that, small businesses, which make up the bulk of South Florida's economy, are frequently finding health policies too expensive and are dropping coverage, sending even more people shopping for insurance.

The problem is, material available on the Web shows that people who have specific illnesses or use certain drugs can't buy coverage.

''This is absolutely the standard way of doing business,'' said Santiago Leon, a health insurance broker in Miami. Being denied for preexisting conditions is well known, but when a person sees the usually confidential list of automatic denials for himself, ``that's a eureka moment. That shows you how harsh the system is.''

A 50-year-old Broward County man, with two long-standing medical conditions, saw the harshness for himself when surfing the Web trying to learn why insurers kept denying him coverage. He was shocked to find several insurers' instructions to sales personnel, usually called the Guide to Medical Underwriting and often marked ``confidential and proprietary.''

''I think it's atrocious what's going on,'' he said. ``Basically, they're taking only the healthy so they can get the fattest profits. If you really need insurance, then you can't get it.''

The man, a self-employed consultant, didn't want his name or preexisting conditions identified for fear that the information might frighten away potential employers.


CONFIDENTIAL GUIDE

Insurers don't want to talk about the guides. Sunrise-based Vista , which has its 35-page ''confidential and proprietary'' guide tucked away within its website, refused to make executives available for an interview and instead issued a brief statement:

``The medical underwriting guidelines used by VISTA are based on industry standards, comply with all regulations and are subject to review by the Florida Department of Insurance. VISTA's Guide to Medical Underwriting is an educational tool intended to assist agents and brokers who are selling VISTA individual plans. We do not comment on our specific underwriting processes and practices.''

Sandra Foertsch, who sells individual policies, says the fundamental concern of insurers is clear: ''They don't want to buy a claim,'' meaning that they would start to collect $500 monthly premiums from a person and quickly pay out more than that to doctors and other providers.

Foertsch said she was surprised that any of the guides could be found on the Web. ``I'd guess someone made a mistake.''

Florida insurers -- Aetna, Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida -- for copies of their underwriting guides. All refused, saying they contained propriety information and were confidential.

Searching the Web, The Miami Herald found underwriting guidelines for Coventry Health Care, which owns Vista; Wellpoint; Assurant Health; and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska.

Among the health problems that the guides say should be rejected: diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, quadriplegia, Parkinson's disease and AIDS/HIV.

Some guides echo Nebraska's warning on the Web that it's ''intended as a reference tool only,'' with final decisions made by managers.


COVERAGE VARIES

Insurers have different criteria. Sleep apnea and fainting for no known cause are reasons for denial for the Nebraska plan, but not for other plans. Vista doesn't want to cover severe acne, but other guides seen don't mention it. Insurers often use measures of body mass index to reject those who are too heavy or too thin.

For cancer, the key is how patients have been doing in remission. Wellpoint, a national insurer, rejects applicants who have had breast or prostate cancer within the past five years. With other types of cancer, 10 years must have passed. Assurant Health, based in Milwaukee, rejects most patients whose cancer has not been in remission for at least eight years.

Other reasons for automatic denial by various companies: alcohol-related problems of people who have not been abstinent for at least six years, chronic bronchitis, severe migraines, and a cardiac pacemaker installed within the last two years.

Some insurers will automatically reject applicants who are using certain prescription drugs. Wellpoint denies anyone who within the past year has taken Abilify and Zyprexa for mental disorders as well as Neupogen, which is used to treat the side effects of chemotherapy. Vista lists the anticoagulant Warfarin and the pain medication Oxycontin. Both companies list insulin.

The medications, of course, are indications of specific health problems. To make sure that applicants are not lying, insurers hire a data-gathering service -- Medical Information Bureau, Milliman's Intelliscript or Ingenix Medpoint.

Intelliscript and Medpoint do computerized searches of a person's drug use, gleaned from pharmacy benefits managers and other databases. The two companies say they comply with privacy laws. ''Ingenix requires each Medpoint client to obtain the authorization of the individual applicant or insured person,'' said Ingenix spokeswoman Karin Olson.

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission accused both companies of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not offering to provide consumers with information about them. The companies agreed to settlements in which they promised to let people see their personal information.



http://www.miamiherald.com/323/story/973158.html

 

[QueEx]

Re: Health Insurers Blacklist Millions

<font size="4">
What do they have on you?</font size><font size="3">

By law, data-mining companies are required to tell you what they're telling health insurers about you. To ask for your file, contact:

Ingenix MedPoint Compliance

Write: 2525 Lake Park Blvd., West Valley City, UT 84120

E-mail: MedpointCompliance@ingenix.com

Milliman Intelliscript

Call: 877-211-4816

E-mail: IntelliScriptSupport@milliman.com

Medical Information Bureau

Call: 866-692-6901​

NOTE: Milliman and Medical Information Bureau say they will have files on you only if you have applied for individual insurance.


</font size>

 

[Makkonnen]

Re: Health Insurers Blacklist Millions

This wont be an issue after this year except for privacy concerns. You can sue those companies and/or cite HIPAA to have them remove all information from their database.

So far the insurance companies are scared shitless that their goose that lays the golden eggs is gonna die. Last week on CSPAN I watched Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Com Chair was saying insurance companies have offered to remove all pre-existing condition clauses from their policies. Baucus said that was nice but the wheels are already in motion. The panel who spoke after he left said there were federal laws prohibiting excluding people from coverage over pre-existing conditions and that the government refuses to enforce it. They said the 50 state insurance commissioners also refuse to enforce the law.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Health Insurers Blacklist Millions

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Gunner]

My take on it is that it will work and that Social Security and Medicare was working prior to the Reagan Revolution. The graph below illustrates how the conservatives are trying to kill the economy so they can drain the government of its social safety net.

source: ZFacts.com

Question them, look them up and then show me yours.

The private sector is raping America while Bill Frist and others are reaping Billions. Health care is not free, but it can and must be cheaper and more accessible Check out these facts!

source: Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care



Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

Man you can't be serious!! If I am a doctor and the government takes over health care and dictates to me what my services are worth where's the incentive??? Many of the doctors in my area do not accept Medicare or Medicaid. Someone has to pay for this. It is obvious you are a tax filer and not a tax payer. If you have a home loan and two cars and a wife and kids and your just getting by in this current economy and extra $200 to $300 dollars a month can be devastating. Also, do you want the same federal government who controls social security and Education which are both in the toilet in control of your child's health care. Many of my client who have medicaid complain all the time about substandard care. People need choice. This is America not a communist state. Your God Obama cannot make doctors accept low pay for their services.

 

[Gunner]

My take on it is that it will work and that Social Security and Medicare was working prior to the Reagan Revolution. The graph below illustrates how the conservatives are trying to kill the economy so they can drain the government of its social safety net.

source: ZFacts.com

Question them, look them up and then show me yours.

The private sector is raping America while Bill Frist and others are reaping Billions. Health care is not free, but it can and must be cheaper and more accessible Check out these facts!

source: Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care



Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

A great explanation to your so called ( facts )http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjo85WhbYqM

If your household was running on a deficit would you keep on spending like a drunken sailor? My friend the government doesn't produce anything its your money they are spending.

 

[thoughtone]

Gunner, are you paid by someone to post on web sites?

 

[Gunner]

Gunner, are you paid by someone to post on web sites?

No my friend I just enjoy " A Little Friendly Conversation". Why? Do you not like having your position challenged. Politics is rather complex for many. It easy to be misled by liberals promising you and others the world but they never deliver.

Name me one project that the government has proposed and solved? The only hand you can depend on is the one at the end of your sleeve. Any thing you subsidize you will get more of. In Louisiana we have charity hospitals. Many of the patients have to wait over 8 to 10 hours to be seen by a physician. Is that what you want. My child has special needs, their is no way on earth I'm going to put her health care in the hands of government. That is my responsibility.
Dude the average American has an Average education. Most people don't read or pay attention to what they pay in taxes. Our country is deficit spending does that mean anything to you. Many of the baby boomers are due to retire and we've promised them the world on a credit card. Don't let your emotional needs override your intellect.

I suggest you go out and buy "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell in this book he details the fall of modern day Russia. Every part of Russia was ran by the government. There were long lines for bread and t-shirts for men. Upon visiting the U.S. many Russian officials were amazed at grocery stores. Things that are apart of our everyday life was totally foreign to them. Yes the book is cited well so that you can verify the information at your leisure.

 

[BigUnc]

There are many isses to be dealt with concerning increasing access to healthcare to the uninsured. Thats really what this is all about. What I'm seeing from the Obama administration are broad conceptual ideas but scant specifics on how it increases access to those currently uninsured. Many questions come to mind.I'll just ask a couple to begin.

1) Will doctors and hospitals be forced to accept this influx of patients?

2) With the current shortage of doctors,nurses and the fact the Healthcare industry infrastructure is set up for the current patient load. What will be the anticipated expansion needs and the associated cost to accomodate these new patients?

3)Wouldn't forcing Doctors and Hospitals to accept these new patients bring about delays, substandard care and rationing of services?

 

[Gunner]

There are many isses to be dealt with concerning increasing access to healthcare to the uninsured. Thats really what this is all about. What I'm seeing from the Obama administration are broad conceptual ideas but scant specifics on how it increases access to those currently uninsured. Many questions come to mind.I'll just ask a couple to begin.

1) Will doctors and hospitals be forced to accept this influx of patients?

2) With the current shortage of doctors,nurses and the fact the Healthcare industry infrastructure is set up for the current patient load. What will be the anticipated expansion needs and the associated cost to accomodate these new patients?

3)Wouldn't forcing Doctors and Hospitals to accept these new patients bring about delays, substandard care and rationing of services?

I would love it if someone in the media would do their job and ask these valid questions.
Instead of asking him about his dog.

 

[Gunner]

ajc.com > Associated Press story
Social Security and Medicare finances worsen
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON — Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

(enlarge photo)
Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue speaks at a news conference at the Treasury Department in Washington, Tuesday, May 12, 2009, after the annual spring meeting of the Social Security and Medicare Trustees to discuss the financial situation of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be."

Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade.

However, Republicans pointed to the newly dire assessments as evidence the Obama administration has failed to come forward with actual entitlement reform to close the funding gaps.

"Instead of getting existing public programs in order right now, some are saying we should create a new government-run health insurance plan," Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a reference to the administration's health care proposals. "When we can't afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?"

House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree."

The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession.

The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.

Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare.

The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report.

At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries.

While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system.

Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections.

The options available to deal with the Social Security shortfall include raising the payroll tax that funds Social Security, such as removing the cap on income subject to the tax, or cutting benefits in some fashion such as raising the retirement age.

The administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation this year to extend health care coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security.

The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget — soaring entitlement spending.

The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.

___

May 12, 2009 - 11:12 p.m. CDT

Copyright 2009, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.



Do you still think the federal government is capable of handling your money or your health care. Social Security was not supposed to be touched but the government has been dipping in it for decades.