The Young Democrats of Harford County have issued the following announcement:
“Congress Must Listen to Us, Not the Insurance Companies”
Protest: March 9th, Washington DC.
On March 9th, thousands of activists will hit the streets in Washington, DC to protest big insurance and demand that Congress give America the health care reform we voted for.
The Young Democrats of Harford County in concert with the Health Care for America NOW coalition is sponsoring a bus to the “Congress Must Listen to Us, Not the Insurance Companies” protest on Tuesday, March 9th. The bus along with a box lunch will be provided at no cost, leaving the Aberdeen area around 8am on Tuesday the 9th. All Health Insurance Reform advocates from Cecil and Harford Counties (and the surrounding area) are encouraged to attend! Contact Russ Kovach at Russell.Kovach@gmail.com or confirm attendance on Facebook at or see us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=332513251089 to reserve a spot on the bus.
Protesters will assemble at Dupont Circle and march to the protest at the Ritz Carlton, 1150 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (about a 1 mile long march). The bus will depart by 4pm EST on March 9th for the return trip to Aberdeen.
We need Congress to listen to us, not the big insurance companies, the profiteers on Wall Street, the oil industry and the polluters, and the rest of the corporate lobbyists who stand in the way of a better America.
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have reaffirmed their commitment to pass reform and end the insurance industry stranglehold on health care. We’ve had a year of debate. Now it’s time to act and Congress has to move forward with no further delay.
We can wait for Congress to act, or we can help them act by raising the stakes.
We don’t control many of the factors when it comes to passing laws on health care, climate change, financial reform and other issues. But one thing we can do is name the villains in this fight—the corporate lobbyists who time and time wage war against progressive reform on health care and everything else we care about.
There are two sides in the fight for a more progressive America, ours and theirs. Every fight that matters and the political leaders who side with the insurance companies are against us.
On March 9th, thousands of activists will hit the streets in Washington, DC to protest big insurance and demand that Congress give America the health care reform we voted for.
March 9th is the day the health insurance lobby, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), is holding a national conference at the Ritz Carlton Hotel to advance their agenda to kill health care reform.
We’ll be there to shut down their event and put the insurance companies and every corporate enemy of change on notice: We’re tired of the gridlock in Congress and we won’t allow the corporate lobbyists to keep bullying Congress into inaction – on health care and all of our issues.
Every day that health care reform is delayed, the entire progressive agenda we voted for in the most historic election of our lives is more at risk. But if we beat corporate lobbyists on health care, we’ll teach them a lesson on jobs, climate change, financial reform, worker rights and much more.
This is not a rally—it’s a protest.
We’re taking action by protesting corporate interference in our government and the insurance lobby’s consistent efforts to stop reform by funding ad campaigns to scare the public and to intimidate Members of Congress. We want them to get out of the way.
At the same time, we want to send a clear message to Congress: Listen to everyday Americans, not the insurance lobbyists. We’ve had enough of insurance companies’ denied claims, inflated profits and soaring premiums. We can’t wait any longer. We need reform NOW.
Russ Kovach
President, Young Democrats of Harford County
www.harfordyoungdems.org
Wow, they intend to “shut down their event.” The official position of the Young Democrats of Harford County is to deny the AHIP’s right to hold their national conference.
What will they do if someone chooses to deny the Young Democrats’ right to hold their meetings or conferences?
Come on Monroe, that’s different. The democrats know what’s good for us and are willing to shove it up our asses. If these fols had to get out and run a small business and fret about this Friday’s paychecks they might have something going. As it is they are just sniveling socio-marxists and of little value.
How sad, the YDHC and I have said nothing negative about any individual; and here we are trying to exercise our rights and you make some sort of conclusion about our value???
I can only imagine what the response would be if I had made such a post about the TEA Party rallies, but as it is they YDHC supports our constitutional rights, and will exercise these rights on March 9th by marching in protest of those very few people that are working to keep health insurance away from so many fellow Americans that need it. This is, in our view, the highest form of patriotism, and we hope that you will join us in our fight for making meaningful health insurance reforms a reality for those that have lost jobs, are under-insured, or are uninsured completely.
So, exercising your rights involves denying others their rights by interfering with a private meeting (“We’ll be there to shut down their event…”). This is far from the highest form of patriotism. As Monroe stated, how would you take it if an organized mob stormed your YDHC meetings to shut them down?
Perhaps good intentions, but lousy execution.
Russ- I am just reacting to the words used in your press release. Your signature is on the page stating that you want to “shut down their event.” I don’t object to protests or statements or rallies where a group expresses their opinion on something. I do have a problem with having as a stated intent the desire to stop some other group from exercising their rights.
The words “shut down their event” seem so confrontational. Is there an unstated desire for an actual confrontation between protesters and convention attendees?
I did not read any tea party press releases so I cannot comment on what they said.
And for the record, I agree that the health care system in this country is broken. I just don’t think the solution should be a big government program.
Monroe
Do you know what a Marxist is? Or a socialist? Not to mention a socio-marxist…not sure quite what that means. But Democrats are not Marxist or socialists. It’s quite simple to prove; look it up in the dictionary.
And you’re saying that no Democrat is a small business owner?! What a joke! I know many…and they’re not Marxists or socialists either!
The discourse, if you can call it that, on the Dagger has really been deteriorating over the past few months. At least Mr. Harden’s comment addressed the article…
Actually I know quite well what the phrases mean. The attempt to destroy the health care delivery system is a power grab. It is nationalizing the industry (banks, GM,, etc). That is socialism. The dems have swung so far to the left that they appear too have lost sight of the fact that there even is a middle.
Russel; that much and quite a bit more has been said by the party liners about the TEA party participants, astro turf, etc. You are not exercising your right to free speech by shouting down another. The folks from the Arab countries do that, like it?
Leave the health care system alone! There is not one group, pro or con inside the Washington beltway that can fix the problems with health care! Why? Because they insist on using analogies and outright lies to support their position, bu thave yet to define the problem. What exactly is the problem that the young dems want to fix? When we peal that onion open we find that it is to support Harry, Nancy and Barry. Get it right and quit spouting some DC line of crap.
Dave:
“Leave the health care system alone” is not a viable option. Tell that to the recently uninsured. Or to the tens of thousands of individuals and families with health insurance that are facing double digit increases of their health insurance premiums while their pay checks are diminishing. Or, tell that to the ex-marine that was on channel 11 this weekend begging people to buy raffle tickets so he can get a necessary double lung transplant. His current insurance has a cap on the benefits, so it will not pay for the $1 mil procedure. His doctors have told him to go on disability and in two years Medicaid will pay for the procedure. So, guess who pays – we all do as taxpayers. I hate to say it, but you are absolutely misinformed if you think the current system is working for Americans. Or tell someone like my father who has run a small business for 30 years that the current system is working. My mother and aunt had to work in jobs that had health insurance because he could not afford the small business premium. And, he could not retire until he was eligible for Medicare. It seems to me that the only system that is working is the federal/state system. And, NO ONE is suggesting a federal takeover of insurance. What we are suggesting is that everyone be able to participate on an even playing field as those that are employed by the federal government. Those of us lucky enough to have this insurance – from the President, Congress on down – have a choice in carriers. And, all of our carriers are private companies. Private companies that heavily compete for the opportunity to insure us!
I would also challenge you to read the article, “The Cost of Doing Nothing” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html. A study indicates that had we passed President Nixon’s plan in the early 70’s, we could be saving over a trillion dollars a year in health care spending.
And, to those of you taking issue to “shut down the event” – obviously this is a call to action. No one, and certainly not progressives want s to take away anyone’s right to protest. That said, a corporation should not be considered a voter. Unfortunately they can now give unlimited funds to a campaign, but that still does not mean that they can vote.
Russ, thanks for your hard work!
Kim
Kim, I have to disagree. Leaving the health CARE system alone is the best option we have. Our doctors are the most skilled, the best in the world. We have the best technology, the most up to date procedures. There is a reason for that. It’s called capitalism.
Leaving the health INSURANCE system alone is an entirely different thing. Too many people confuse the two. The best thing we could do is get rid of health insurance altogether. I got a bill the other day from Labcorp, who my insurance company uses. For a routine blood test, CBC and thyroid levels, the bill was for over $6700. Of that my insurance paid $40 and I pay nothing, lab test are covered at 100% on my policy. We all know that it doesn’t cost $6700.00 for lab work, but they charge that much to get as much as they can from the insurance company. I guarantee, if no one had anything but catastrophic health insurance, doctors, hospitals, and labs could not charge these crazy prices. But they can, because of health insurance. If everyone who went to the doctors had to pay for that visit out of pocket, the ridiculous prices would go away, no one could afford them. If I’m selling cupcakes for $3000 each, no one would buy my cupcakes, they would go elsewhere where the prices were reasonable. And if I wanted to compete, I’d have to lower my prices or close up shop. Same with doctors and medical bills. Either charge what people can afford or close up shop.
Now, I don’t see that happening in the near future. The next best option is to take health insurance out of the employers hands. If everyone had to pay their own premiums, they would be much lower and the employers could increase salaries and hire more people. I pay a little over $2000 per month for our family’s health insurance. That’s quite a bit more than my mortgage! My husband is self employed. Think for awhile about what a small business would have to pay for insurance for, say, 25 people. The insurance companies can charge those rates because small businesses are paying at least some of those premiums. Our car insurance isn’t tied to our employer, why should our health insurance be? Because of lobbyist. If everyone had to pay their own premiums, they would be cheaper because many people couldn’t, or would choose not to, afford it.
It also seems that most people have no idea that there are already controls on health insurance. Each state has an insurance commissioner and it’s own set of laws. That is the way it should be. Yes, I’m a strict constitutionalist and believe the constitution is what makes us the best country in the world. In the constitution it clearly states that any rights not specifically given to the federal government should remain with the states. Everyone unhappy with the health insurance laws should be contacting their state’s insurance commissioner. Most of the issues people are fighting for are already laws in their own states, they are just believing the media hype without checking out the facts for themselves. Most people believe the media is untrustworthy, yet they follow along without learning the facts for themselves.
In MD when you cancel a health insurance policy, you receive a paper that states you were insured with the dates. If you haven’t had a lapse in coverage, you can’t be turned down for pre-existing conditions. So why is everyone fighting for this issue, it’s already a law.
If the Federal Government takes over our health insurance industry, we are going to lose big. If they lower costs, such as doctor salaries, we will have less and less doctors. Same with up to date medical equipment. Compare our technology, MRI machines, robotic assisted surgeries, etc. with any other country in the world. We come out on top. And the only reason other countries are even close is because they can buy the technology from us. The only way to lower health CARE cost is to lower our standard of health CARE. We, as consumers, can make better decisions than the Fed. Gov’t. That is why capitalism works.
Turn health CARE back to the free market. It will still be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as it is now. And PLEASE, remember that health care and health insurance are two different things. Just because your insurance won’t pay for something doesn’t mean you can’t have the procedure, you just have to pay for it yourself. If it weren’t for employer paid for health insurance, you would be able to afford many procedures that you can’t afford now. And remember, if the federal gov’t gets involved we will no longer have all the cutting edge, most up to date, and quickly available health CARE in the world. Are you really willing to jeopardize our level of medical care? I’m not. I want the BEST care in the world for my children and I’m not willing to settle for less!
Dave, What an assinine statement. Is Medicare socialism?
Are all the folks in YOUR age group that take advantage of Medicare socialists? Also, please show just a little respect for OUR president and call him by his proper name and/or title. I know it’s be tough for you, but I think you do it! Prove me right Dave:)
Since you followed this post with one stating “Joe, You are simply full of S#%T”, you have now become the expert on respect. Congratulations.
MM;
Medicare and medicaid are purely socialist programs. I am now on Medicare, not because I want to be but because I have absolutely no other alternative. I could not keep my insurance, as is, when I turned 65, the GOVERNMENT told me I had to do it. Using the program doesn’t indicate any ism whatsoever. Creating and then jamming it down my throat was a socialistic act. I will never call the current occupant of my white house anything but the gentle name used here or something much worse. I will not show him respect simply because he bought the title. He is a “post turtle” and deserves little to no respect.
Dave Yensan –
I’m looking forward to the post “post-turtle” period.
Joe
Joe;
I wonder how many folks realize what a post turtle is. Some demented soul on here will undoubtedly decide the term is racist however.
If I am correct post turtle gets everyone all excited and ready to fight and then ducks for cover in their shell when the fight starts?
Cdev –
A “Post-Turtle” is an unnatural phenomenon, where with assistance a turtle is set up on a fence post.
The turtle cannot get down, cannot move in any direction, can only gaze forward from the position he has been fixed and is essentially pitied by all since he is helpless, but no one will help him down and the “Post-Turtle” is doomed.
Joe
You’re both partly correct. A post turtle is a phenomenon in the West Texas farm country. Every once in a while, while driving down a country road you see a turtle on a fence post. Now there are a couple of things you know and a couple of things you don’t. You know that he didn’t get up there by himself and he has no idea what to do now that he’s up there. What you don’t know is exactly who put him up there and what purpose the individual had in placing him on that high spot in the first place.
For a lot of people nowadays, “Marxist” is what you call someone with whom you disagree, when you’re too grown-up and sophisticated to call them a rat-fink.
kalmia78 –
I’m confused about Marxists and Socialists within the Democrat Party? Who are these Socialist folks?
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Joe
That was really logical… what you are saying is analogous to me saying most KKK members vote with the Republican Party (and make up about 1/100000 of the Republican Party membership), thus the Republican Party is all racist.
Are there self-described socialists that are part of the Democratic Party? I be there are. Does that mean that the Democratic Party is a socialist party? No more than KKK members being a member of the Republican Party makes the Republicans racist.
ProudDemocrat –
I don’t know how many socialists are democrat party members? Do you?
Joe
Joe;
You are wasting your time and talents responding to PD. Arguing with him/her/it is like wrestling with a pig – everybody gets dirty and the pig has fun.
Dave Yensan –
I only use 10% of my intellect when responding to ProudDemocrat.
Joe
I can tell you only use 10% of your intellect… that is why you are a Republican.
P.S. If you are going to call it the “Democrat” Party, you have no room whatsoever to complain when people refer to the TEA Partiers as Teabaggers… if you cannot figure out when to use Democratic vs. Democrat, then I have very little faith in whatever organization calls you a “Strategic Performance Oriented Franchise Executive”.
PD; There is absolutely no way we can call that bunch democratic. It is the democrat party. If it were democratic we would never have had 90% of the government waste in the failed welfare programs.
ProudDem mumbled: “If you are going to call it the ‘Democrat’ Party, you have no room whatsoever to complain when people refer to the TEA Partiers as Teabaggers…”
So you are saying that “Democrat” is also a reference to a sexual act usually associated with gay men? Does the rest of your party know that you think this way?
Hey, take a look at your own name. And you are proud of it! Do you really think that it is appropriate to advertise your sexual proclivities in your nom de plume? (have someone explain that phrase to you)
Dave,
The article above and others like it written by Russ and people like him give me hope and accellerate the promise that the reign of the liberals will be shorter than anyone could have imagined.
Russ,
If you really want to take a message to Washington stop by the White House and tell your rock star president to focus on the economy and specifically the unemployed and the under employed by creating an environment where small business can thrive and produce and employ. The answer Russ is never more government.
Al
And, Al, sorry, but had to say this, last I checked we live in the United States of America. I am assuming you do too. Therefore, President Obama is not “your” president as you say to Russ. He is our president. Which means, again assuming you live here, that he is your president also. Just like President Bush was my president whether I agreed with him or not. We all want the best for our country. Therefore, we should not treat it like we live in two different countries.
Kim, Unfortunately I must disagree with the end of your statement. Not all citizens want “what is best for our country”. In fact, there are many in the “loyal opposition” that would do anything (including what is NOT best for our country) to destroy the Obama presidency. Just listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, many Republican Senators and Representatives, etc. and you will agree.
Al J Thong –
Excellent advise to Russ on what his candidate, and now our President, Barack Obama should be doing about the economy.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that President Obama will as you say “focus on the economy and specifically the unemployed and the under employed by creating an environment where small business can thrive and produce and employ”. Since the only “solutions” he has are ones that entail massive growth in government agencies and increased taxes for all.
President Obama’s ideological progressive goal is create a majority dependent class of people supported by a minority producing class. If successful his progressive plan will bankrupt our nation, diminish us all and enslave through debt future generations.
Joe
Joe,
Well spoken. The debt we will pass along to future generations is in magnitude I am unable to comprehend.
Al
This idea always comes up whenever there is a push for change in social safety-net programs (a majority dependent class). The concept is completely and totally unfounded by any kind of real-world data in any country that has a powerful and functional welfare system. To be sure good programs are expensive, and frankly it is the necessary taxes and not any aspect of ‘dependency’ that has driven the American reluctance to develop a functional safety-net (conservatives use nonsense arguments like ‘dependency’ to make the many that will benefit from such programs vote against their economic best interest; it is a scam by the conservatives and sadly too many people fall for it). I find it hard to believe that Britain, Canada, and France call all pull this off better than we can. If American is really the greatest country in the world (and I still believe we can be), then we should not only be able to create a functional safety net, but we should be able to do it better than they can!
DY – stop calling our president Barry, it is offensive and unbecoming; you are doing it to belittle the man rather than highlight your difference of opinion.
JC – Fixing the health care system is perhaps the most important economic priority for people that are out of a job. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Dems are not selling it that way.
For everybody: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT FAR-LEFT. In fact, most of us strong Democrats are hoping and praying they move more left. We should be arguing for universal single-payer health care. Sadly the mis-information from the right and the buddy system between conservatives and main-stream media (not the mention Fox) makes a civil open discussion about such programs nonexistent.
Social programs like Medicare, Social Security, or when we finally get smart enough to do it Universal SP Health Care improve quality of life, make it much easier for entrepreneurship, are FANTASTIC for small business, and greatly increase the quality of life for Americans. Far too many people today wonder how they can get their kids to a doctor or get them their dinner. No American should fret these things. We need to get our kids outdoors, go on vacations, become worldly, get to see other parts of our own country. These are the things that so many more Americans could have if the conservatives did not block true advances in society in order to pad the bank accounts of the wealthiest amongst us.
PD, that is a riot!
Ignoring all of the other liberal babble, the poster who couldn’t put a sentence together about the TEA Party without using a homophobic reference has a complaint about someone referring to the President by a name that he used to refer to himself by!
Brilliant!
ProudDemocrat –
Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt programs that are financially unsustainable and you think creating a new single-payer social program for health care is a great idea?
A single-payer system and both the Senate and House bills would kill job creation, burden the economy and destroy small business.
Joe
Joseph Caruso:
You could not be more wrong. How could a single payer system kill job creation? If anything, it would increase job creation and allow people to go out and start their own businesses without having to worry about working for a large company that offers health insurance.
Kim
Kim McCarthy –
I don’t know how I could be more wrong, in fact I don’t know how I’m wrong at all.
Why don’t you explain how a free lunch buffet that is the envisaged by the Obamacrats with the current health care plans will not be a drain on the economy?
Massive tax increases with a wholly new health care entitlement can only kill jobs and suck the life out the economy.
Joe
TRue and Social Security should go too. But niether party wants to take on the AARP Army.
Cdev –
Progressive social welfare programs however well intentioned subjugate the very people they intend to help and create a dependent classes.
And once the dependent group is entrenched it becomes a force of desperation and unyielding self-interest that has a two goals 1) maintain the status quo and 2) get more money.
Pensioners are not bad people. The bad people were the FDR progressives and their acolytes through the years that over-promised successive generations of seniors.
Joe
Joe through the years presidents from both parties alike have talked a game on social security reform. Then AARP and their minions of people rise up and nothing gets done.
PD;
So sorry I offended you by referring to the current occupant of my White House as Barry. I have been doing that on here because I can’t call him what I and most people who have to work for a living call him when there is no record. You have been tagged before for your absolute hypocrisy but here we are again. It seems to me that the last president was referred to as “W” or Bush. I saw lots of bumper sticker critical of him that used those and worse.
Your commentary on the entire health care debate is so wrong headed as to be laughable. In fact I actually laughed out loud when you used the totally failed programs that began under FDR and then strengthened by the big eared SOB from Texas – “The Great Society.” Both of these program sets have cost the American people trillions of dollars and the folks who were supposed to be helped are either worse off or enslaved by the entitlements.
Keep ranting PD, you have proven yourself to be as wrong and irrelevant as Barry, Nancy and Harry.
Let me open by stating that I have no political affiliations whatsoever, and find this whole dispute unbelievable.
This issue should not be discussed along partisan lines, but by the whole government intent on working together to improve the status quo.
Health, like education, should not be considered the province of the wealthy, but should be available to all. There are many of you that appear to have a problem with the word “socialism”.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Marxism: the political and economic theories of Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95), later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
Hence there is no evident relationship between socialism and Marxism or communism, which are totalitarian in nature. Socialist programs are acceptable, and indeed necessary, in any capitalist environment, purely because there is no motivation in capitalism unless there is an element of profit or gain.
There is overwhelming evidence of the need for reform in the USA. Are you aware that you are paying, per capita, more than twice the average of most other civilized countries, and that your life expectancy is shorter? See the graph produced from OECD statistics here http://www.coledata.com/health.pdf – it will astound you.
The primary cause of the excessive amounts US citizens pay is not because the service is better, and most certainly not because more funds are spent on research. (Although it is a fact that more funds are spent on research in the USA than any other nation, this research is not paid for by the medical insurance industry, or by the health industry, the research is generally funded by grants.) The reason that health costs so much in the USA is because of the fragmentation of the system, with profit being taken at every level.
Consider, for example, a simple incident like a broken bone: First you go to the emergency room: Here you pay a bill to the radiographers, and a separate bill for the hospital services. Both of these elements include profit. The hospital doctor then tells you that you must g to your own doctor regarding ongoing treatment, so you pay for another doctor’s visit. Your doctor is a family practitioner, and earns his living and supports his office on $50 visits, so there is an element of profit taken there. However, as a family practitioner, he is not in the osteo business, and therefore refers you to a specialist, who will firstly check that your fracture was competently treated by the ER doctor, charge you another profit inclusive fee for this service, and ask to see you again in a few week’s time to remove the plaster. Again you get another bill. At this time, because of muscular degeneration, the specialist refers you to a physical therapist, who provides a series of treatments, for which you will naturally be billed.
In this simple example there are FIVE different entities taking profit from your simple fracture, and, if you are not insured, will have expended over $2,000 on this problem in about six weeks.
For the insured, the picture is naturally different: All the treatments are the same, but you only meet the co-payments, thus you might pay between $50 and $100.
It is what happens in the background that is iniquitous; the radiographer, the hospital, your doctor, the specialist and the physical therapist all submit their bills to the insurance company. The insurance company receives the bills, and then checks the “going rate” and pays that amount, for the services you have received, back to the various physicians, who then have to write the difference off, and that difference is often as much as 70% of the total.
So now we have a situation where the insurance carrier has taken your premiums, and fights tooth and nail to retain its margin (for the benefit of the shareholders) by screwing the people who gave you treatment.
This creates a cycle of events that, if you have never worked in the medical industry you would find hard to believe. The service providers, having (in their opinion) been underpaid on the last job, inflate the bill for the next job, in the hope of getting the insurance companies “going rate” increased. Hospitals and insurance companies both employ negotiators who battle constantly over billing rates, and the ultimate effect is usually a slight increase in the “going rate” and an increase in your premiums.
For the uninsured with a serious problem, they can face ruin. Firstly, it is probable that they are uninsured either because they cannot afford it, or because they have been denied coverage owing to a pre-existing condition. However, they are a cash cow to hospitals, who, knowing up-front that the patient is uninsured, loads their billing significantly. (I once broke my pinkie, went to Harford Memorial, and was charged $750 for an aluminum splint, a piece of tape, and this was applied by a nurse in about 3 minutes.) If the uninsured do not pay the bills, the hospital figures they also can’t afford an attorney, and consequently sues the patient, to recover their money through the sale of assets. During a short time working in the billing department of the USA’s leading hospital, two ex patients committed suicide because they could not pay their bills.
So: my conclusion is that it is absolutely essential to move away from the existing partial system to an all embracing system. Let’s consider how most other countries work:
They have a national health system where insurance is collected by the government, and all doctors and hospitals are paid from the government insurance funding. There is usually also a private system in operation, for which you pay an independent insurer, who then provides the means for you to travel “first class” through the system.
The advantages of a nationalized health system are many: hospitals can save millions on advertising and marketing, on bloated billing departments, and pass those benefits along to the shareholders. Family doctors lives would be made easier by eliminating the various insurance companies they had to bill, and would become remunerated, not by the visits they billed, but by the number of patients on their books. Consequently bad doctors would disappear, and we would all be visiting better doctors. The biggest saving, however, would be the reduction of costs within the system, because the multiple, and in some cases, pyramid, profit taking would be eliminated.
Who would be the losers? Naturally it would be the health insurance industry, the very ones that are lobbying against any sort of reform. Remember also, as I stated above, their behavior over generations is the very reason that some form of national system must be invoked.
It really is time for the Republicans to stop their partisan maneuvering, and, on behalf of the country, cut their ties with the lobbyists, and deal with the problem.
Coledata –
Congratulations on a well written hypothesis that is simply wrong.
The are many reasons why health care costs are high in the United States. The main factor is that the has no interest in negotiating with doctors and hospitals since the patient with private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid has their bill paid by a third party.
If patients controlled their health care purchases then they would have an incentive to shop for value and doctors, hospital and yes even insurers would have to become competitive.
Under our current dysfunctional health care system there is little to no penalty for over-consumption. In fact over-consumption is encouraged by doctors and hospitals practicing defensive medicine and driven by patients that pay only a fraction of the true cost.
You want to lower health care costs…put patients in charge of the purchasing. They will seek value and health care costs will be driven down.
Finally, the Obama plan does nothing to reduce health care costs and will likely increase costs.
Joe
Joe you just described what goes on in Switzerlnd. Furthermore since employers do not pay for insurance….they pay more to do the job.
Coledata, the opinions masked as facts in your post are too numerous to respond to individually. To put it simply, all free-market capitalists would disagree with your screed, of which I am one.
Phil Dirt:
I guess it never ocurred to you that I might be a free market capitalist, and have been my own employer for thirty years.
Joe, I agree completely except I must add that another reason we have expensive health care costs is because we have the best health care in the world. If the Obama plan is going to reduce costs (which it obviously can’t do) then we will be jeopardizing our health care quality. You get what you pay for! Our system isn’t perfect, but I’m not willing to jeopardize my childrens’ health to save money.
If the Obama plan saves money, it will do so at the cost of having less people become doctors. I want my doctors to be the best and brightest. I want them to make lots of money so they go into the health care field, that’s a lot of schooling to ask someone to do. If we reduce their salaries, they will go into a different field. Same with medical equipment. If we don’t pay top dollar we will get a lesser grade of technology. Anyone want to say they would prefer to go back 20 years and use that technology instead? Who in their right mind would spend time developing medical equipment and procedures if they aren’t going to be paid well.
First we need to take health insurance out of the employers hands. Everyone should pay their own premiums. Their prices would come down because they would be pricing themselves out of the market. Then, everyone should have to pay their own dr. bills. Insurance should only be used for catastophic things, surgery, hospital stays, etc. Encouraaging competition will reduce prices, you know, like the free market.
Sandy just an fyi your vet is probably brighter then your doc.
Sandy by your pay analysis if you want better teachers….you need to pay them more!
additionally Sandy you further describe the Swiss healthcare system. It is far cheaaper and it is good quality too!
Cdev, Huh? I have no idea what my dog’s vet has to do with anything, but I am happy with him. He fixed up my doggie when she tore her MCL. And he seems nice enough, I don’t have anything bad to say about him.
As far as being smarter than my doctors, that’s actually kind of funny. I, unfortunately, have some major health issues, nothing curable, just treating symptoms to be as comfortable as possible. My daughter is growth hormone deficient and has severe asthma. We both see some of the top doctors in the country. How could you possible compare them to my dog’s vet without knowing who my doctors are and who my vet is? If that was supposed to make sense, you are more off base than I originally thought.
I’m on the fence about teachers pay. I definitely think that they should make more money when they first start out, but I also think they should be capped at a certain point. No insult intended, but you don’t have to be brilliant to teach. My daughter is double majoring in elementary ed and deaf studies. I look at what she is learning, and it definitely doesn’t take a rocket scientist. You have a lot more schooling to do to be a doctor than you do to be a teacher. And teachers get way more days off. Not to start this argument again though, I do believe we should pay teachers more right out of college. By the time they are teaching 25 years they make a lot of money, I don’t think it should take that long to get to that salary. But the teachers association has ruined it for teachers by insisting on a crazy amount of benefits. Similar to GM.
You really have a thing about the Swiss healthcare system, don’t you? Take a minute and google what the Swiss pay in taxes, seriously, and you want teachers to be paid more? Imagine taking THAT amount out of your pay check!
Sandy it is harder to get into vetrinary school then medicl school and many people who fail to get into vetrinary school…..go to medicl school nd become doctors.
Cdev, and that makes them less bright why? You are basing intelligence on there being more medical schools than veterinary schools? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get into a Pharmacy school because their are so few?
Using your logic, what does that say about teachers? I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t get into a teaching program at a college.
Have you looked at the taxes in Switzerland yet? Or are you going to just ignore that and pretend that it rains money there?
Sandy I am simply saying that vetrinary school rejects end up doing people surgery. Chill out further more I just had an opportunity to look into the Swiss taxing system. Most everything I could find said that “Switzerland was a tax haven”
furthermore all taxes in Switzerland must be voted on by referendum! That is wht I gleaned from wikipedia which is the most reputable source I could find to meet your quick demand for vlidation.
I have only been mentioning the Swiss progrm and Dutch program since October! In some cases to see who is doing their homework and who is regurgetating talking points. When I suggested one poster said “we don’t need socilized health care in any form” when it was pointed out tht neither country is socialized in that regard they stopped commenting on and until recently Joe is the only one who seems to have looked at it and offered an opinion.
Obviously we need reform to the current system it is bankrupting consumers and employers. I do not think we needed anything like the House Bill the Senate bill was still a little drastic for me as well. I like the Swiss system because it forces the providers of helth cre to compete. Tomorrow cll 3 hospitals and try to find out the cost you would pay off the street for an X-ray of your right leg or a CAT scan. The cost is not something they can tell you. Why because it is not fixed and varies per person. This keeps me from being a smart consumer if I can not know which hospital is charging less it flies in the fce of capitalism and free market economies! In Switzerland you know the cost because they are trying to beet each others cost.
CDev:
The Dutch don’t have a system any different from most EEC countries, the UK. French, Dutch, Belgian, Luxembourg, Irish, French, Finnish, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Swedish and Austrian systems are all very similar. The odd one out is the Swiss system, based on a small country with a small population, where government works on referendum. However, the Swiss are not part of the EEC.
Coledata that is false
The UK has a single payer system. The Dutch in2006 switched to a dual level cumpolsary system with private and public insurances.
“Long-term treatments, especially those that involve (semi-)permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a state-run mandatory insurance”
“For all regular (short-term) medical treatment, there is a system of obligatory health insurance, with private health insurance companies. These insurance companies are obliged to provide a package with a defined set of insured treatments ”
(wikipedia)
Cdev, The income tax alone in Switzerland is 60% for most people. Then comes the VAT tax, a tax from what are basically states, local area tax, they even tax healthcare. It would take way too long to post every tax they pay, there are a lot of them, estate tax, capital gains tax, wealth tax, etc. If the government is taking somewhere close to 70% of your salary, where is the incentive to work hard. How hard would you work if you only got to keep 30% of your salary. Why bother? Have you noticed that the Swiss aren’t one of the countries who invent anything useful? There is a reason for that. If the government is going to take care of everyone equally, then why work harder?
Cdev, do you know that the state of MD already has mandated the minimum coverage a small group can offer? We already have what you are asking for. And seriously, Wikipedia, you should know better than that!
The biggest flaw in our insurance is that they make deals to accept less if you have certain insurances. It is wrong to make someone who chooses not to have health insurance to pay more. It’s too close to price fixing. If you and I both go to Target and buy the exact same things, our prices would be the same. It should work that way with health insurance too.
One solution is for the states to mandate that a doctor needs to charge everyone the same price for the same procedure. Another is to not have health insurance tied to your employer, if someone wants to purchase insurance let them purchase the plan that will give them the best value.
I agree that it is ridiculous that you can’t find out the cost of a procedure very easily. You can get the ICD code from the doctor, but that won’t give you the whole story. I have United Health Care and they actually have on their website a price estimator. It’s pretty accurate, and I give kudos to UHC for doing that!
I shopped hard for our insurance since my husband is self employed. When insurance is through an employer, its great if your employer pays part of the premium, but you lose a lot of choices that way. I searched and found the best plan for my family. Don’t tie insurance to employers and everyone could choose what they want.
Sandy what source did you find for your tax info.
I am aware wikipedia is not perfect but if you are using it and then scrutinize the source it cites (which I did) it is more then appropriate.
I agree two people, regardless of insurance or not should be paying the same from the same doctor. They don’t and that is addressed in the Dutch and Swiss systems!
Cdev, I googled “taxes in Switzerland” and read about 8 different articles. Then I included only the information that was common to at least 3 sites. It’s the best way I could think to get an accurate rate. Since anyone can post anything on the internet I generally don’t believe one source, unless it is a source I am familiar with.
I am completely with you that something has to be done. We are paying close to $1500 dollars per month for our insurance policy. What many people don’t realize is that most insurance companies don’t make a huge profit. The average anesthesiologist pays $25,000 per year for malpractive insurance! And I’m upset to be paying $1500. Costs get passed on to the insurance companies who pass the costs on to us. If you have ever had the occassion to purchase your own insurance, not just choosing what your employer offers, you will find that the rates are all very similar. You could say it’s price fixing, but I don’t believe that. They charge as little as they can and still make some profit, otherwise they would lose business to the cheaper company. My husband ran the IT department for a health insurance company and saw the profits first hand, they are not what most people think they are.
The answer is to lower health care costs. The problem is that I want the best care available. We need torte reform first of all. Then we need to make people pay for their doctor visits out of their own pockets, otherwise they abuse the system. Doctor visits would then come down in price, you know, free market and all. And doctors would do a better job and not have you returning every 2 weeks for therapy or whatever unless it was absolutely necessary. If paients feel taken advantage of because they are paying too much, they will go elsewhere. The will shop around and find the doctor they are most comfortable with.
From here you can go 2 ways. Either the doctor visits get applied to a fairly high deductible, and other bills would be paid by insurace after the deductible is met. Or you only get catastophic insurance in case something bad happens and you need expensive procedures.
Another option they offer in Florida is you get a certain number of doctor visits paid for, everything else you pay yourself. I’m not sure how that works with hospital stays, surgeries, emergencies, etc. I personally don’t like that option, but someone else might. We should all be able to choose the insurance we want. Just like car insurance, home owners insurance, etc. We should also be able to choose not to have insurance, but the bills need to go to that person and handled like any other loan they either pay or default on.
There are so many ways to fix health insurance problems without putting the federal government in charge of it. They can’t seem to do anything right. Can you imagine how long it would take to get an approval? It takes 12 weeks just to get a passport! And it is unconstitutional for the fed. gov’t to get involved.
You work in the teaching field. How well do you think NCLB is working out? What about Everyday Math? And LICW? That’s what happens when the federal government takes control.
I can’t speak for every state, but MD is doing a great job of regulating the health insurance problems. The less the fed. gov’t does,the better off we all are!
CDev: You are apparently not aware that the UK also has a dual level system. There is one minor difference – it is not compulsory.
If, in the UK you want to decide which physician will treat you, oe which hospital you wish to be treated at, then you require the non-state insurance to cover these costs.
The amount the would have been expended by the national health service for standard treatment is then paid to the insurance company, who settle all the costs.
Coledata in the dutch system the only cumpolsary thing is participation (for the consumer)
Sandy:
Let’s clear a couple of things up:
1. I do not have health insurance because a pre-existing condition raises the premium to an amount greater than my income. I am not freeloading, and would happily purchase health insurance if it was in any way affordable.
2. Taxes in Switzerland are actually quite low. Apart from the extremely wealthy, the average earner pays considerably less than less than 30%, the amount varying upon where you live. (Some cantons have adopted a flat tax, which is easier to administrate, and generally fairer.) It is true they have Value Added Tax, but with a standard rate of 7.6% on all purchases, this isn’t much different to our iniquitous sales tax. Capital gains tax in Switzerland was abandoned many years ago.
3. Your contention that the Swiss don’t produce any useful is entirely misguided. 60% of the countries revenue comes from exports, rating it one of the best in the world. Ever heard of Ceiba-Geigy pharmeceuticals, Dornier Flugzeugwerke (aircraft manufacturers, Credit Suisse, Hoffman LaRoche pharmeceuticals, Julius Baer Group (pharmeceuticals), Kühne & Nagel – one of the largest shipping companies in the world, Leica, Nestle, Tag Heuer, Victorinox – makers of the Swiss Army knife, and we might also include Rolex, Omega and Swatch just for good measure.
4. You contend that a nationalized health system would result in fewer people becoming doctors. I tthink his is mistaken for a couple of reasons; a) We are currently oversupplied woth doctors because of the referal system, and b) because medicine is usually a vocation, it takes more than the promise of a fat pay check to spend years at university, years at medical school, and subsequently a cruel internship to make people desire to become doctors.
5. You maintain that health care insurers don’t make much money. The 2009 profit reported by Kaiser Permanate was a mere 2.1 billion dollars, a 5% return on revenue, even Aetna, who had a bad year, managed to return 442 million. It is probable that your husband didn’t see the numbers related to the REAL income of most insurance companies, and that is the return on investments, interest on holdings and margins on currency markets. Insurance companies, by their very nature have to be cash rich, and this cash is used in a variety of way to make their profits.
I fully realize that you are committed to your viewpoint because it apparently works for you. However, the currrent system doesn’t really work well for the majority of people, even those that support it.
Coledata, I’ll address your concerns one at a time.
1.You don’t have health insurance because you don’t know the law. Being self employed, and living in MD, each health insurance company is required to offer their small group plan to self employed people. Open enrollment is in January, so you apply in December. You cannot be turnd down because of pre existing conditions during open enrollment. At the time, my daughter was on a medication that costs over $100 per day, and she needed the shot everyday. If they could have turned us down, they would have. This is a medication she needed until at least age 16, and quite possibly for the rest of her life.
2. You are only even considering 2 taxes in Switzerland. Not all Cantons have abandoned the capital gains tax. Capital Gains tax on real estate is 18% and real estate transfer taxes are 4%. Anyone not employed has to pay a wealth tax. The flat take is equal to 5 times what their property is worth. Income tax is approximately 40%.Income tax is generally twice that at the Canton level. 10.1% goes to the Federal Old age and Disability Fund. Unemployment tax is 3%. In most Cantons, health insurance is required and is the responsibility of the citizen to pay for it. There is a rate of 5% tax on insurance. And that’s the short version.
3.Seriously, they invented Rolex and Swatch. Where would the world be without them? I’ve never heard of those pharmaceutical companies, so it doesn’t seem like there is anything there we don’t already get from somewhere else. But I will concede that point. They develop pharmaceuticals and that is important. I don’t know anything about shipping companies, but I’m pretty happy with UPS and Fed Ex.
4. You believe that paying doctors less would create more doctors? No way. The only reason they suffer through what they do is because they are well paid for it, and in most cases, the love of what they do. We actually have a shortage of doctors, especially primary care physicians. That’s because they aren’t paid enough so they specialize to make more money.
You lost all credibility to me when you told me my husband just didn’t see all the reports. Seriously, he wrote the programs to give those reports to the owner of the company. He saw everything, there was no way around it. Why in the world would you make a comment like that about something you know nothing about? Don’t you find that a strange argument? “You’re wrong because your husband didn’t see those reports.” You really should stick to the facts if you want any credibility ar all. As for the 5% profit margin you quote, do you really think that’s too much? How would a company pay their employees on less than a 5% profit. You can’t expect them to work for free. What do you think is a fair profit margin?
As for your insurance, I strongly advise you to call the state Insurance Commissioner’s office. They were so helpful to us when we needed to get insurance when my husband became self employed. I hope they can help you as well. Good luck to you, I hope you find a way to get coverage.
Joe, You are simply full of S#%T.
Mama Mia?
Terrific rebuttal, I see your side of the debate perfectly now.
Thank you,
Joe
Joe:
I don’t disagree with your theory, which is another contributary factor, but, having worked at the sharp end of medical billing, I can assure you that your reasons are only a fraction of the story.
I agree that you are outlining a system very similar to that of the Swiss. However, it is not practical in our environment, for several compelling reasons:
1. The population of the United States is so vast that the system would become unmanageable upon commencement.
2. The Swiss have a system of education where patients can obtain fee advice about their ailments and the possible treatments. This is a social system provided by the government, which you may consequently eschew.
3. If patients negotiated for their health care purchases, the vendor would immediately jack up the opening price in the certain knowledge that they would enter a bidding war, and would end up getting a similar amount to their current charges. In the USA you would actually WORSEN the situation, because you would have increased the initial asking price.
4. There is, in your theory, no consideration made for the person that suffers an accident and has no time or ability to shop for their services.
Your system unfortunately cannot work in a nation where greed and profit rule; the Swiss are a very different and relatively incorrupt nation with a small population (7.6 million) and, if I recall, the health system is monitored by the cantons (states), of which the largest would be Zurich with a population of about 1 million.
In my lifetime I have lived in the UK, France, Holland, Belgium and Tanzania, and the USA. The USA is the only country where I cannot obtain medical insurance.
Coledata, why can’t you obtain health insurance in the US? My husband is self employed and my daughter has some major health issues. We had no problem.
Sandi:
I have no desire to “screw” my clients just so that I can pay inflated health insurance, I wish to provide value for our corporate services.
I have gone through university, gained my degrees, and a doctorate, and spent over 40 years in my specilization, which, as one of the fastest moving mediums currently existing, requires a mimimum of 4 hours per day of study just to keep pace.
My environment is not disimalar to that of a medical specialist; I have to diagnose, remedy, and create proactive prevention.
However, I cannot feel justified in charging the fees that are acceptable in the medical profession, any more that I can accept the fees charged by my least educated but strongest competitor, who far exceeds any of the excesses of the medical profession, using “technicians” whose only knowledge is how to put a CD into a drive.
I live in the computer and data environment, something that has apparently become precious to everyone. Let me just tell you that my company recently had a client that decided that we was too expensive and went elswhere. For a fee of approximately $650 they rebuilt the system, but claimed that there was no backup availiblity for all their accounting documents, and that the system was so infected by a particular virus that the whole registry was contaminated, and they they had to “wipe” and rebuild the whole hard drive.
When the sytem was re-installed in our clients prmises, none of the peripheries funtioned, but more importantly, the consequential data loss was dramatic, with some ten years of extemely complex and valuable data being deleted. It was fortunate that we had retained (at no cost to our client) backups of their data, and were therefore able to bring their systems back to 90% efficcieny.)
A few days later, our client, through no fault of their own, managed to acquire exactly the same infection, however, when we were called to remedy the exact same problem, managed to remedy the problem in a couple of hours for a cost of $150, with absolutely no loss of data.
The whole point of this diatribe is to point out that firstly you don’t necessarily get what you pay for, but more importantly, there are people out there, and there are MANY of them, with the real knowledge, and the ability to resolve problems, either in my field, or medicine, accounting, engineering, and and many other remedial processes, that don’t endeavor to rape their clients, but look at the service they have provided, and look at its value to the client before billing.
It is true that I do way too much pro bono work, and it is also true that I discount my billing heavily, particularly where I feel that the cost outweighs the value, or the client just can’t afford the service they have received, but I can sleep at night knowing that my client base will be there tomorrow.
Unfortuately, it is also true that there is no rapidly expanding offsore bank account, forget about health insurance!
Coledata, So it isn’t that you can’t get health insurance, it is that you choose not to for monetary reasons. That’s your choice. The US is a free country and you are free to make your own choice about health insurance. The bottom line, though, is that you are making a choice not to have health insurance or to offer it to any employes you may have. Instead, you want the rest of the tax payers to pay for it for you. I think that is selfish. My husband is in the same field, he is a computer consultant, and even though it is tough, we make health insurance a priority. That means we can’t afford vacations and a lot of other luxuries, but that is our choice. I would never dream of asking everyone else to pay for it for us. We live in an entitlement society, it’s a shame that so many people are so willing to try to live off the backs of those who work really hard.
Al:
Maybe Russ can take a swing by Texas to talk to the previous conservative adminstation about the wreck of an economy they left behind because of their lack of oversight on the financial industry, an out of control military occupation, and the unprecedented reduction of taxes on the top 1% which has left us in a state where we cannot even support our infrastructure.
I think the President is doing just fine focussing on those needing jobs. Oh, wait, maybe Russ would better spend his little trip you suggest by stopping by Congress to talk to the conservative Senator’s and specifically Sen Kyl who is blocking jobless aid and put a halt to much needed highway construction. Nice, huh? Will really get the economy moving.
Kim
Kim,
The lessons to be learned from Massachusetts are manifold yet seem to elude some on the left. Health care reform like abortion and gay marriage are all important hot button issues to some but main street has set them aside for a time and is now acutely focused on the economy and specifically jobs. The masses of unemployed and under employed are not so much worried about who was driving the train on the way to the crash for that puts nothing on their table or on the backs of their children. They are looking for someone to forge a path back and have starting telling their elected officials the same, not through disruptive shouting in the streets, but in the polls with their votes. And even the least informed of the electorate knows that bail outs didn’t bail them out and taking over the health care industry isn’t going to get them back to work. Kim, growing government is never the answer.
Way to go Kim! The last refuge of the uninformed is to change the subject. What the hell does what happened in the last administration have to do with this discussion? Your BOY won after spending a king’s ransom on the campaign, now he ought to get on with it. Stop with the Bush stuff. Win lose or draw Barry is the guy with the fuzzy nuts now. LEAD, follow or get the hell out of the way!
Dave,
Kind of like changing the subject by yelling “Socialism!!!” every time a Democrat does something progressive to help the American people? President Obama is not “attempting to destroy the health care delivery system” as you said earlier, he’s trying to improve it so that people don’t die in this country because of lack of health care! And you really think he wants to nationalize industry? Our capitalist economic system was on the brink of collapse and the government (under both Bush and Obama) took steps to save it, that equals socialism?
Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it socialist.
kalmia78 –
Obama is certainly is a far-left progressive and he may very well be a socialist.
You cannot say that nationalizing General Motors wasn’t a socialist act. Wanting a universal government-run single-payer health care plan is socialist.
I certainly believe voters never expected President Obama would govern as a leftist-progressive. And I don’t want to discover at the end of President Obama’s single four year term that oh heck he actually was a socialist.
So I will not argue whether or not President Obama is just a leftist-progressive or a full blown socialist. However, I will not support leftist-progressive programs that are socialist.
Joe
kalmia78 –
Are you Annie Kovach?
Is ProudDemocrat Russell Kovach?
Joe
Russell Kovach is Russell Kovach. Do we know each other? Are you the former tow-pilot at Atlantic Soaring?
Dave, whether intentional or not, calling OUR president “BOY” is definitely a racist remark. And by the way, President Barack Obama IS leading. It’s the Republicans that are doing nothing but complaining and obstructing! Damn facts just keep getting in the way our your close minded rhetoric!
You and I agree on something. “President Barack Obama IS leading. It’s the Republicans that are doing nothing but complaining and obstructing!” Barry is leading us to the far left and those who oppose that movement are trying to obstruct it. If this troika, Nancy, Harry and Barry force the current health care debacle down our throats they’ll all get it shoved right back up their democratic mascots.
Healthcare reform is a key to fixing the economic problems. It’s not in the periphery–it is in the nucleus. Those of you who blindly play down the critical implications of sitting by and taking no action (or maybe just a little action dictated by the states)appear to be out of touch, extreme, and fundamentalist in your absolute views. There is no black and white answer, we live in a complicated world.
But there are a few simple truths:
My health insurace premium is almost as much as my mortgage.
If I lose my job, I can’t afford health insurance.
If I or one my children get too sick, my maximum lifetime benefits won’t be enough to cover us and we could go bankrupt.
All of these things are economic. All of these things are addressed in the healthcare bill before Congress.
There is a problem with incentives here. We need to keep the incentive to work, otherwise America will stop growing wealthier over time.
That is not wealthy in terms of dollars, but in quality of life – health, meals for family, dishwashers, microwaves, cell phones, and those things that are deserving of press reporting.
AmericanDream –
It is the cost of health care that is the problem and the Senate and House bills do nothing to reduce costs, in fact they don’t even address how to pay for those bills. And now we have a new plan from our President today and who knows what’s in it?
Reform in health care cannot be achieved through a “Big Government” progressive plan that does nothing to address how health care is consumed and provided. The consumers of health care need to know the true cost of what they are buying before they can become efficient consumers. I want to be free to buy my coverage from the most efficient private insurers and choose the best and most cost effective doctors and hospitals. I cannot achieve these goals today and none of the government alternatives will provide what people truly need and want.
It is time to start over on a plan that leverages free market capitalist solutions to our health care problems.
Joe
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the same boat. Health premiums rise as our coverage goes down. Rejected for medicines by the insurance company that the doctor prescribed and told by insurer “you don’t need it anymore.” Who is making the medical decision there? Not the doctor, but the insurer. We have had to greatly reduce our coverage. What other industry (besides of course electric) can raise rates more than 40% every year?
Doing nothing is not the answer. It seems that most of the people who don’t want healthcare reform who live near me work for the government and have much better benefits. They don’t want the government to pay for healthcare. Who is paying for theirs?
Actually they aren’t. That bill is all about socialism and screw the poor dumb SOB who is producing.
Dave Yensan –
Maybe Canadian health care is desirable to some?
http://tiny.cc/UBL9c
Joe
American Dream, my health insurance premium is more expensive than my mortgage, so what? The answer is to not have your health insurance connected to your employer. Then you are free to choose the insurance you want. Choose a policy with a maximum limit you are comfortable with. The only reason you are limited is because of the choices your employer gave you. If you aren’t happy you should discuss it with him, not blame the entire US healthcare system. You don’t need a new bill, you need more capitalism. Imagine the limitations the government is going to put on your health care. Scares me everytime I think about it!
You are Republican talking point machines. Lots of sound bites. No
solutions. Plenty of unsubstantiated data and statistics.
The only poll that matters was taken on election day on 2008. It was a majority of voters who plainly said we want healthcare reform in this way. Now, despite the Party of No, Democrats will act like they won and deliver. And the next election will determine public opinion on the results.
AmnericanDream – Says “It was a majority of voters who plainly said we want healthcare reform in this way.”
Actually, voters in the 2008 election did not have any details of a plan so I don’t know what you are talking about. Did you have some super secret foreknowledge?
We all want improvements to our health care woes, but we do not want a cure to health care that kills our economy.
Joe
Joe I am politely asking. Are you at least conceding the current system is flawed? I don’t think it needs the overhaul being proposed but something along the lines of Switzerland or the Netherlands.
Cdev –
The current health care system is certainly flawed. Medicare and Medicaid are absolutely broken and are toxic to the private system since the government under these social welfare programs only pays providers 60% in reimbursements which is compensated through cost shifting to private payers (individuals and insurers).
The Swiss (pop. 8M) and Netherlands (pop. 17M) systems might work for individual states, but I don’t think you can apply those system on the United States (pop. 309M). Additionally, the mandatory purchase of health insurance is problematic.
Joe
Joe, once again, you spew negatives, but offer no solutions!
Cdev
How many third world countries border Switzerland or the Netherlands?
I admit France is alittle rough but not as bad as Mexico.
point well taken Joe. Massachuesets has a program similar to that of the Netherlands. The Swiss program is more a method that simply involves free market competition between providers. Essentially in their systems providers advertise prices and attempt to be cheaper then the other guy. It encourages you to be the consumer and get the MRI done at a facility that offers the best price since you pay for it.
bill what does Mexico bordering our country have to do with our healthcare system? It doesn’t.
Well, if you look at some of the studies done since MA passed their health care reform, I believe you’ll find that their system is completely screwed up now with a severe lack of doctors (especially primary care), absurd waiting times for an appointment, etc.
That’s actually one of the biggest problems with the universal health care proposals that I haven’t seen discussed much. There already is a huge lack in primary care doctors in this country and when you give coverage to millions more it’s going to be virtually impossible to get an appointment with your doctor even if you’re already a patient….if you’re a new patient it’ll be even worse.
The dutch program differs in that insurance companies can raise your rates for “overuse” of the system without being diagnosed as having anything wrong. Your rates vary based on your personal life choices.
Joe,
President Obama and many Democrats running for Congressional office campaigned on the promise to overhaul the health care system and they discussed the ways in which they would do this (i.e. a public option, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc.). So when these Democrats won their respective elections, yes, it does say the American people want health care reform in this way.
If this health care bill is less than ideal, it’s because it’s been so watered down to appease the center (i.e. a portion of the Democratic party…I haven’t seen any evidence of centrist Republicans recently) and to fight the misrepresentations being spouted about it that in the end it won’t be effective.
kalmia78 – Says – “yes, it does say the American people want health care reform in this way.”
Your post is illogical and nonsensical. There is no evidence to support the notion that in the 2008 election that the American people voted in favor of what is now being proposed.
Joe
Joe,
Question, If the solution being offered by our present Federal Government is Socialism and you are completely against it, are you in favor of the complete opposite? Complete and total Capitalism, Laissez faire healthcare? No government intevention what so ever?
Chai Tea Party-
I am.
Al
Anarchy Al !?
Chai, Yes, that would be the BEST way to lower prices. I just got a bill from Labcorp for routine blood work that was over $6700.00. No one in their right mind would go there and pay that price, they would go somewhere else. Same with doctors and hospitals. It’s called competition and the best VALUE would win.
And Joe, please get a life and get off of The Dagger once in a while! While I check in every other day or so (and post on a much less frequent basis), it seems that you always have MANY posts on MOST days. While you have the right to post as much as you want, some of us truly grow tired of your obnoxious endless drivel.
And this is from the person who just made the last seven consecutive posts on The Dagger.
You just can’t find comedy like this in the Aegis!
Mr. Richard Head (aka Phil Dirt), Did you miss my point, or are you just a bit dense? To assist you, the point I was TRYING to make is that “Joe Joe” is on EVERY DAY, MANY TIMES. On the other hand, I am on occasionally, but I may spend a FEW minutes responding to multiple posts. (A big difference for us enlightened folks!)
Stay classy, Mama.
What is wrong with letting every American participate in the same insurance system every federal employee participates in? You get your capitalism – because, believe me, they market and market for our business – and the uninsured/underinsured get to participate in a great system. That way, you do not need to be in the top 1% to afford health care and you would encourage all kinds of small business growth.
Kim, I like the outside-of-the-box thinking on this. The first concern I see with this proposal is a federal employee program is certainly not capitalistic- they employ so many people that they have monopoly pricing over the market. That is, they have so many subscribers that they can set their own pricing schedules. This is part of the reason that health insurance for people is so high- to make up for the minimal payments from the government insurance plans.
Could you explain why this would stimulate small business?
Absolutely, because they would not have to worry about providing health insurance to their employees and would be free to hire. I speak from experience as we have a small family business that could not afford to hire me because of the cost of health insurance – something I was not willing to do without, as so many must. People would be free to take their great ideas and start their own business instead of having to stay working for a large company only becuase that was the only way to provide insurance for themselves and family.
And, that is ridiculous to say that the federal health insurance is not capitalism. Companies will not continue to do business for the long term with a firm that is causing them to loose money. They might “buy into” the market with a low offering, but then they will either increase of if they can’t they will pull out of the market. This happens all the time in the insurance industry. Those that choose to be part of the federal healthcare system are there because they are making money – period.
This is an interesting proposal.
It appears, after poking around on their web site, like the Federal government and State governments contract with Insurance companies to provide different coverages to employees. I was under the impression that it was an internal insurance provider.
The reason I say that government-backed health care is not a capitalistic system is because there is no profit motive on the government side. The government has taxpayer dollars backing it and any losses it may sustain. I understand your point though.
Pat as you found out federal employees (my dad is one) have a choice of a few plans from a few networks and they fight for the employees to subscribe.
Cdev, the situation you describe is exactly what the proposed Health Insurance reforms will provide for all Americans. A great improvement considering so many Americans have no choice at all (and too often no health insurance at all). Nice to have you on board!
Ms. Kim,
I don’t have a problem with ‘letting’ every American participate in the Fed. hc program, if that is a choice. Not mandated. The difference is choice, not ordered, fined.
Three issues I have with the current hc bill/proposal involve the legitimate freedom of choice of the American citizens…if this bill does pass as is, anyone that doesn’t purchase health care insurance will be fined. The small business owner will be taxed higher and fines imposed on the individual business. The same level of takeover that seemed to occur in the ’60’s by union take over of small businesses. Remember the home builders and the union controlled co.takeovers that put so many family/small business owners out of business due to the demand/forced increased wages, benefits,etc? The health care bill, purports to do the same…you will have this brand of this type of this insurance.
Second, the hc bill will establish a medicare panel to determine which patient receives treatment…age, weight, current health condition, height and medicines currently taken, will all be the deciding factors that the dr. will have to abide by for the patient…whether or not the panel has any medical knowledge about the patient…this is nuts. Medicare is insurance. It is paid for by the fed. gov. from taxes paid by both employees and employers. A panel should not be determining if my grandmom needs heart meds or if she is old enough to die. That is wrong.
The phase of the bill, funding of treatments, hospitals, clinics and labs, medical staff et al, will be dramatically cut to enable the 30 million new health care beneficiaries added to the gov’t controlled rolls. Please think about the last time you waited for either a drivers license or a letter to arrive from the gov’t. When waiting for an answer on the phone from BGE, or the Harford county govt., do you think that the gov’t will be more adept at diagnosing, treating and prescribing for a physical problems, with less doctors, less hospitals, clinics and labs availalbe? The funding for science to develop new medical treatments and the new meds will be reduced to compensate for the higher costs of insurance. Where will the cures come from for MS, Cancer,Arthritis, and all of the other chronic diseases that exist? The number of clinics that provide drug treatments, birth control, emergency care and other services will be manned not by doctors, but by para-medical staff.
We Americans are bright, creative, intellegent and talented. The gov’t, Dems. and Pres. Obama and his progressive-socialist administration, are trying to destroy, but definitely dimming the future for our country and our children by trying to control of every part of the citizen’s life, from birth to death. Please wake up my fellow Americans and take back your life before it is too late. The gov’t ought not be telling doctors who they can treat and when and with what meds. The govt’ needs to address the issues that the Constitution addresses. The gov’t ought not mandate each citizen has to buy health insurance.
The gov’t ought not decide who gets what medicine.
The gov’t needs to stay out of doctor-patient treatment and dr. choice. My body, my choice is more than for birth control issues. The gov’t needs to address health care. Start over from scratch and allow input from the folks that will end up paying for it, American citizens, Independents, Republicans and Democrats and not only the SEIU and health care lobbyists that surround the current Democrat Administration…Harry, Nancy and Pres. Barry…as well as Andy, Cathy and Rahm, and please don’t forget VP Joe…he has grandkids, too.
One more tirade, the veterans of our country deserve more and better treatment, maybe the gov. ought to fix that first and then try to fix the whole country. The comment earlier about the voters choosing health care reform by electing Pres. Barry, in our gov’t, the process is to allow all sides to participate. They didn’t. The bill is big time flawed and needs to be re-done.
Toby, well said! We have the best health care in the world. Our health insurance policy has flaws, but constitutionally, this issue belongs to the states. We already have an insurance commission in MD, we don’t need the fed. gov’t to come in and mess things up. No Child Left Behind anyone? We can fix the problems we have without a government takeover. I can’t think of anything the federal government can do better than the private sector. I certainly don’t want them messing up the quality of our health care!
Toby, you addressed so many things with pure conjecture that it’s difficult to pull out exactly what your objections are.
1. Everyone is rquired to have insurance: this is fundamental to fixing our healthcare system. Insurance companies will require everyone to have insurance in order to accept those with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, we would have freeloaders who wait until they get sick to buy a policy. Do you propose that state-mandated auto insurace is an unessecary act of big government too?
2. Medicare Panels: Your interpretation of their power and reach to decide if my grandmother lives or dies has been proven a myth propogated irresponsibly by Sarah Palin. It doesn’t even require a rebuttal is is so outlandishly false.
3. All sides were asked, no directed, to participate in this process. Instead of going to their respective districts and soliciting solutions, GOP members of Congress spent the month of August last year grandstanding, perpetuating falsehoods, and taking up airtime with vocal and foul minority. Imagine how productive it would have been for the GOP to have real town hall style meetings and ask participants to propose solutions. What if they discussed real solutions, even if they are bite-sized and only address part of the issue? What if they had compiled those solutions—from their constituents, from advisors and from industry experts–and brought them back for discussion on the floor. They would have been putting forward an honest effort to move along with the administration and have a hand in the result. Instead now they (and their supporters) will be left behind.
But fear not, everyone will gain the same benefits as the rest of us when we head down the road to a better healthcare system. Because Democrats work for the common good of the people, even if those people don’t believe in reciprocating.
American Dream,
You are mistaken about your basic facts.
Only people that chose to own, operate and legally drive a vehicle, must have auto insurance. The gov’t does not mandate anyone that does not own or operate, their choice, the car owners choice, to have insurance. The Gov’t does not say that non-drivers must have car insurance. If the health care bill passes as is, each American must have health insurance or face fines, higher taxes and no choice- you must have health insurance, or else. No choice, no freedom to choose, no personal free choice…
The panels that will determine which person is eligible for medicare health care is in fact stated within the Health Care bill and the costs reductions w/n medicare will be funded by the reduction of medicare treatments, ie. my grandmom is too old, fat, sick and disabled to get the same treatment as your younger, skinnier, healthier and abled grandmom. These panels are described w/n the bill, and the money’s saved by the panels is to offset the spending on newly gov’t insured people, 30 million newly covered people. Several congressmen and women have addressed their concerns, among them, Cong. Simon, Evan Bayh, Joseph Lieberman among others. This bill is not cost effective or people friendly, either. The medicare panel part of the bill does not address pre-existing disease, specifically. The pre-existing illness portion of the bill is used to promote gov’t funded insurance plans, not ind. purchase of hc insurance plans. I agree that insurance cos. do have to make adjustments.
BUT, the insurance purchaser, ought to have the free will choice to buy across state lines, upgrade the insurance purchased and include the options that the purchaser wants, not be dictated to by the gov’t on which plan that the taxpayer/purchaser must have and by whom and what it will cover. If I chose BC/BS and move to Fl., I should be able to take my policy with me. My policy, my choice.
The whole House and Senate, as well as the Administration, were able to get input from the citizens w/n this country.
I remind you of three specific deals, Conn., Louisiana and Nebraska, all three got really good deals, don’t you think? And what about the Pres. inviting 10 congressmen that voted no to the white house for lunch… Does anyone see a lack of honor among the Administration, or transparency anyone? the facts that no one has been able to read the bill before it was forced for a vote, the fact that town halls were filled with questions and that millions of American taxpayers, myself included, went to Washington to protest this bill has been ignored.
This bill is not well crafted, will cause major financial loss for many, families and small businesses,
it will impact future care within our country, it will cause longer waits for treatment and it is not going to provide the level of care we Americans, all Americans demand. Notice I did not say deserve, have a right to have or are guaranteed, but as Americans, want and demand the ability to earn the medical care we want.
I think that if the Health care bill were re-designed, openly and with the input of the people that are paying for it, the bill would be passed and signed into law. As it is, it is not good policy, not good law and should not be supported and paid for by your and my tax dollars. The congress and the President need to take the time to listen, and start from the beginning with a smaller, focused and realistic approach to the health care reform that the citizens within the country, those paying for this bill’s want.
Your stated arguments for the bill do not address the number of citizens opposed to the intervention by the gov’t in individual lives. Perhaps talking to some small business owners, the taxpayers within the county or state will allow you to have a new and different perspective. God bless America.
gladIamAmerican, I agree with you but I was hoping you could explain something to me. I hear a lot about buying insurance across state lines. One reason I don’t like that is then you are taking the regulation away from the states and giving it to the federal government. In my opinion, that should require an amendment to the constitution. Beyond that, here is what I am hoping you can explain. My insurance has preferred doctors, a list of doctors that except my insurance and the rates they agree to. So, if someone in California were to purchase my insurance, they would have to come to MD for care. Obviously, that doesn’t make any sense. The other option is that the gov’t would be forcing doctors in California to accept whatever rate my insurance company pays. The cost of living is different in different parts of the country. A doctor in Manhattan couldn’t accept the same pay as a doctor in Kentucky or they couldn’t afford their offices. I agree with everything else in your post, but this one, that I hear often, just doesn’t make sense to me. What am I missing?
I know of several friends, neighbors or co-workers (including myself) that are going back and forth with the insurance companies. —Countless calls over what is and isn’t covered from treatment received nearly a year ago.
If you know anyone that is very sick ask them. It’s like a full time job. The telephone reps are rude and relentless. If my family blindly paid all the bills sent, and TRUSTED the industry’s integrity, we would be over $1500 in the hole for rutine items that once disputed were found to be valid and covered just last year. Of course, by then the zelious office manager at your doctor’s office has forwarded your file to collections and credit rating agencies. …That’ll take another 4 months to get cleared up (if you’re lucky).
Our country has arguably the best health care in the world. Our state, in my opinion, has some of the best health care in the country! Sadly with all that being said, almost every one of us is one major illness away from poverty.
Alan, I dont know who your insurance company is, but I would be looking for a change. I have United Health Care and have some major health issues. 2 days before my first surgery, about 2 1/2 years ago, I got a letter saying my surgery wasn’t going to be covered, we needed to do a different procedure instead. This was major surgery and my husband had already taken off and informed his clients he wouldn’t be in his office for a few days. I panicked! I called and found out that my doctor had made a mistake and written down the wrong symptoms and reason for the surgery. The customer service rep did everything he could to get this taken care of. He couldn’t have been nicer, couldn’t have been more helpful. To make a LONG story short, at 8PM we had the nurse who actually does the approvals on the phone, from her home, and she gave me the approval code right then. And remember, this was my doctor’s mistake, not the insurance company’s.
I obviously don’t know your whole story, but if you went to a doctor who was “in network” with your insurance company, they cannot turn your case over to any collection agency while waiting for insurance issues. If they did, you need to report that to the insurance commissioner. If you didn’t explain the situation to the doctor, or you didn’t us an in network doctor, that’s a different story.
One major illness away from povery? How do you figure? Most people have insurance so that doesn’t happen. I don’t understand.