"An unfair assault on 'workers'"

[rn4]

We already have nationalized care for the elderly. It's called Medicare, and note that the UAW isn't exactly rushing to have retired UAW workers shifted to Medicare, even though this would save a huge amount of money for the companies. Why? Because the benefits provided by Medicare aren't nearly as generous as those provided by the current UAW-negotiated plan. So the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous.

 

Nationalized plans cost less because they are less generous with their coverage. People think that a nationalized plan will be just like their current plan.

 

Imagine that a company provides every employee with a Mercedes S-Class. The government decides that everyone should get a free car. But, given cost concerns, it won't be a Mercedes S-Class. It will be a Hyundai Accent.

 

That's great for people who don't have a car. But it's not so good for those who currently enjoy a free Mercedes S-Class.

 

This is what would happen under a nationalized health care plan to those with UAW-like plans.

 

Unless, of course, the UAW then decides that Ford, GM and Chrysler would have to fill the gap between the government plan and the current health care plan. Which means that the cost disadvantage remains, only on a smaller scale.

Well you are wrong on the UAW health care, when a person reaches medicare age, medicare becomes their primary insurance and the company insurance is secondary.

[J-150]

OMG, I am so sick of hearing about this shit.

 

Sometimes, I wish the UAW would just SHUT THE F*CK UP!

 

sometimes, I wish you would do the same

 

 

correction.

 

a lot of the time I wish you would do the same.

Edited December 29, 2008 by J-150

[old_fairmont_wagon]

A couple of things here that people seem to be misunderstanding...

 

1) Saying that the industry downturn is the biggest issue for the big 3 and citing the dropping sales numbers for the imports as a validation for that thinking. It is a well known fact that the transplants use two tactics to make their workforce more flexible: The employ a high percentage of "temps" permatemping from local closely held agencies and also having work rules that allow for worker layoffs if needed. Granted, many of them haven't had to layoff yet, though, they have scaled shifts back and released large numbers of temps. That is something that the big 3 simply can not do due to their UAW contract at the moment.

 

2)Socializing the US medical system wouldn't be as big of a headache as many make it out to be from an administrative standpoint. The framework is already there in the form of MEdicare and Medicade. There is government healthcare already in place for senior citizens and for children of needy families and their mothers. The payouts are already calculated and the policies and procedures are already in place. Traditionally, those groups are some of the biggest consumers of healthcare resources anyway as the elderly go through their health decline as they get older and the children are more prone to injury accidents along with their needs for regular checkups and vaccinations. If the plans were expanded to cover all of the US citizens, it would definitely incurr a huge cost increase, but not so incredible as many imagine. Look at your pay stub, see that Medicare section? Imagine that increasing by doubling or tripling that's about where it would be. Now, look over at your employee health benifit withholdings, imagine that drastically decreasing or even disappearing. The net result for the average middle class tax payer that already pays for insurance through their company is an increase, per paycheck, of roughly $100 in what healthcare takes from it (assumes bi-weekly paychecks and the same standard of care as is defined in the basic MEdicare/MEdicade coverage). If they are buying health insurance on the open market on their own, they could see a net decrease in their costs. There will still be the possibility to buy up with private plans or a business perque to have expanded services or expedited services.

 

While nationalized healthcare would definitely help with employee costs for most businesses, it would also take, on average, $1200-$3000 of spending money out of the hands of most consumers per year, making them less likely to be able to afford to buy a new car each year. The net result would be reduced costs and reduced sales, which results in no marked improvement for the automakers.

[nvsked]

A couple of things here that people seem to be misunderstanding...

 

1) Saying that the industry downturn is the biggest issue for the big 3 and citing the dropping sales numbers for the imports as a validation for that thinking. It is a well known fact that the transplants use two tactics to make their workforce more flexible: The employ a high percentage of "temps" permatemping from local closely held agencies and also having work rules that allow for worker layoffs if needed. Granted, many of them haven't had to layoff yet, though, they have scaled shifts back and released large numbers of temps. That is something that the big 3 simply can not do due to their UAW contract at the moment.

 

 

While nationalized healthcare would definitely help with employee costs for most businesses, it would also take, on average, $1200-$3000 of spending money out of the hands of most consumers per year, making them less likely to be able to afford to buy a new car each year. The net result would be reduced costs and reduced sales, which results in no marked improvement for the automakers.

 

We need temp lawmakers to break the log jam in Washington. We can out source them to India, free trade on lawmakers. India is willing to make our laws for pennies on the dollar

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1123.cfm

 

An increasing number of lawmakers, among them Senators John Breaux (D-LA), Connie Mack (R-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), have shown an interest in reforming Medicare by introducing key features of the health care system that covers Members of Congress and over 9 million other federal employees and retirees. This program—the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)—has been attracting a great deal of attention recently, including a day of hearings before the Senate Finance Committee. Using the FEHBP as the foundation for Medicare reform would be compatible with the outline of reform now being prepared by the leadership in both houses of Congress.

 

This growing interest is hardly surprising. The FEHBP and Medicare both are large programs run by the federal government, but the similarity ends there. The FEHBP is not experiencing the severe financial problems faced by Medicare. It is run by a very small bureaucracy that, unlike Medicare's, does not try to set prices for doctors and hospitals. It offers choices of modern benefits and private plans to federal retirees (and active workers) that are unavailable in Medicare. It provides comprehensive information to enrollees. And it uses a completely different payment system that blends a formula with negotiations to achieve a remarkable level of cost control while constantly improving benefits and enjoying wide popularity.

 

Have a great day

[LSFan00]

Medicare has been under perpetual reform on both the provider and benefits side since it was established. The money to be made from government isn't in steadily confiscating/redistributing monies but in changing how that is done (constantly). It is rumored that there are 2 or 3 loyal, humble, civil servants employed by our federal government. I suspect that is an over-count.

 

It's like this short story:

 

One day, a long time ago, there was a woman who didn't b*tch, whine or complain.

 

But it was just that one day, and it was a long time ago.

 

 

(This was wholly inappropriate, but I bet even pioneer chuckled.)

[macattak1]

My community decided to landscape the rim/shore of a lake, that no one can see because the road sitting beside it is 10 feet above. They planted Cypress trees because they tend to do well at the shores of lakes, no need to water. But bureaucracy stated they needed to be irrigated. The city spent more on irrigation installing and materials, than the actual trees itself. Then 6 months later they had to be ripped out because the road above was being widened. Amazing.

 

We usually hold a "best decorated home for the holiday" competition each Xmas. It was killed this year...Said employee cuts, not enough city staff time. I asked about what it required, and to put it plain I ended it with "It doesn't take weeks or days to load up 7 people in a minivan and drive around and VOTE on the homes in ONE NIGHT, cut the BS!". So as head of my non-for profit, we just absorbed that project. I guess they couldnt spend for a paltry few hours to take care of the issue. Then I received the "books" on what the rules are to this contest and 90% is just red tape BS. So I narrowed everything down to 3 pages and sent it back to the city, with the cover "Cut the BS!"... It got approved...well with out the BS part....

 

NICE! Love it! :happy feet:

 

Peace and Blessings

[nvsked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

 

Proponents of health care reform argue that moving to a single-payer system would reallocate the money currently spent on the administrative overhead required to run the hundreds[26] of insurance companies in the U.S. to provide universal care.[27] An often-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 30 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs.[28]

 

Theoretically, advocates suggest, shifting the U.S. to a single-payer health care system could provide universal coverage, give patients free choice of providers and hospitals, and guarantee comprehensive coverage and equal access for all medically necessary procedures, without increasing overall spending. Shifting to a single-payer system could also theoretically eliminate oversight by managed care reviewers, restoring the traditional doctor-patient relationship.[14]

[RangerM]

Just a question.

 

What was the last Federal Government program that came in at (or under) budget that provided a good or service (at no retail cost) to anyone who demanded it?

[nvsked]

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/how.php

 

How Would It Work?

 

Single-payer national health insurance would provide health insurance coverage for everyone in the United States (the US currently has about 45 million uninsured), alter the way businesses pay for health care, modify how doctors are paid, how hospitals calculate their costs and budgets, and how much prescription drugs cost in the United States. Let's look at a couple of stories from average patients and health care workers to give a couple examples of how a single-payer system might work in the United States. Then we'll break it down by group by group--and give an overview of how patients, physicians, businesses, hospitals, and insurance companies would end up in the single-payer world.

Eric Flores

 

Eric sells computer parts for a large technology company in Texas. He currently has health insurance for himself, but for the past two years, his employer has been making him pay for more and more of the health care bill. And the insurance covers his wife, but not his kids. Eric's not happy about it, but what's he going to do?

 

In a single-payer system, Eric's employer would most likely have to pay less for his health insurance--meaning Eric would take home more of his paycheck every month. There would be a small income tax to help pay for the system (smaller if he makes less money, larger if he makes more), but Eric's kids would have full health insurance, would likely never see a bill again, have cheaper prescription drugs, and no huge deductible if he ever got really sick. He could go see any doctor he wanted, and would have health care even if was laid off or went on a vacation to Florida.

Joanna Edwards

 

After 15 years of working in a factory in New Jersey, the factory closed, leaving Joanna jobless--and without health insurance. She recently found some part-time work, but it doesn't offer her health insurance. She's healthy and fit, but her daughter has asthma and needs to see a doctor regularly. She's tried to buy health insurance as an individual, but everyone denied her because of a dislocated shoulder 5 years ago in a minor car accident (yes, this is actually cited as a "pre-existing condition.")

 

In a single-payer system, Joanna and her daughter would both be covered. There are no "pre-existing conditions;" there are no rejections of coverage. Even after she lost her job, she could still take her daughter to the same doctor and her daughter could still get the medicines she needs to keep from having an asthma attack.

Health Insurance Industry

 

The health insurance industry would be mostly eliminated--only organizations that actually employed doctors (like Kaiser Permanente in California) would be allowed to continue to operate. One single-payer bill would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

 

The people who brought us the $750 billion bail out plan Boo - Hoo

[nvsked]

Just a question.

 

What was the last Federal Government program that came in at (or under) budget that provided a good or service (at no retail cost) to anyone who demanded it?

 

 

TARP

[RangerM]

Just a question.

 

What was the last Federal Government program that came in at (or under) budget that provided a good or service (at no retail cost) to anyone who demanded it?

 

TARP

 

TARP may not be the most compelling argument for single-payer healthcare.

 

TARP is not a good or service provided to anyone who demands it (at no retail cost), anyway. (only banks financial institutions qualify)

Edited December 29, 2008 by RangerM

[nvsked]

TARP may not be the most compelling argument for single-payer healthcare.

 

TARP is not a good or service provided to anyone who demands it (at no retail cost), anyway. (only banks qualify)

 

 

AIG is a bank? Oh and the legacy cost to America isn't factored into the equation.... my bad I'm obviously not an Economics major. Autoworker can barely read or write. Subvert the dominate paradigm

[Ralph Greene]

Obviously you've never had a love one die, because of the lack of health insurance. You need to get your head out of your ass and come to the surface with real people. Did you read that information in some insurance company brochure.

 

I currently have a 92 year old mother with a broken leg and hip in a skilled care unit. Outlook not too good.

 

I am aware of the BS of medicare and her secondary insurance also. Her bill is running over $200,000 and is being paid for by her Medicare and secondary insurance. If she had no insurance, she would be getting same care in her community. So we (as a society are paying for everyone now....one way or another). Why not have a formal program, that doesn't descriminate and humiliate those that fall thru the cracks....those with too much for medicade, and not enough assets to pay for good insurance.

[RangerM]

AIG is a bank? Oh and the legacy cost to America isn't factored into the equation.... my bad I'm obviously not an Economics major. Autoworker can barely read or write. Subvert the dominate paradigm

 

You are correct. When I lazily typed banks, I should have (more accurately) typed "financial institutions".

 

Feel better now?

 

The question still stands:

 

What was the last Federal Government program that came in at (or under) budget that provided a good or service (at no retail cost) to anyone who demanded it?

[Deanh]

I currently have a 92 year old mother with a broken leg and hip in a skilled care unit. Outlook not too good.

 

I am aware of the BS of medicare and her secondary insurance also. Her bill is running over $200,000 and is being paid for by her Medicare and secondary insurance. If she had no insurance, she would be getting same care in her community. So we (as a society are paying for everyone now....one way or another). Why not have a formal program, that doesn't descriminate and humiliate those that fall thru the cracks....those with too much for medicade, and not enough assets to pay for good insurance.

sorry bout your Mum Ralph, my Grandmother ( New Zealand )recently had BOTH hips replaced for the SECOND time at the age of 92.....she had to wait 2 months for the parts to come in from Australia.. total cost?....ZERO, ZIP, NADA....bring on socialized medicine I say.....

[Project-Fairmont]

selling health insurance is very profitable

 

Are you sure? Actually like banking, it’s what you do with the money. In terms of ROI, insurance is usually less than 5%, typically around 2-3% for health. It’s what you do with the premiums before you pay claims, investments.

 

The government cannot eliminate the insurer; the government has not proven that they can do anything more efficient than the private sector...even with national health care, its better to outsource the development, delivery and TPA duties.

 

More government provided care is not the answer; we are in our health care predicament precisely because of government programs:

Here in Northeast WI, Private insurance pays roughly 80% (negotiated discounts) of Health Care providers’ book-rate, Medicare 60%, and Medicaid 40%. Medicare/Medicaid accounts for 40% of care given, 52% is private insurance paid, and unpaid care amounted to 8% of care given.

 

The bottom line is the amount of uninsured is not a drain on their resources, the book rate is elevated to absorb the low Medicare/Medicaid rates, however if more private insured's are placed on state/government provided health care with a low reimbursement rate - we will see rationing of care. Oh Canada!

Edited December 30, 2008 by Project-Fairmont

[suv_guy_19]

While some label Canada's system as "socialized medicine," the term is inaccurate. Unlike systems with public delivery, such as the UK, the Canadian system provides public coverage for private delivery. As Princeton University health economist Uwe E. Reinhardt notes, single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems, because doctors are in the private sector.[20] Similarly, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities, rather than being part of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

[jpd80]

Aussie system is similar but allows private health insurance.

Residents earning over $10,000 pa pay a 1.5% medicare levy on total income.

The government also rebates 30% of private medical insurance premiums.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)

Medicare is Australia's publicly-funded universal health care system, operated by the government authority Medicare Australia. Medicare is intended to provide affordable treatment by doctors and in public hospitals for all resident citizens and permanent residents except for those on Norfolk Island. Residents with a Medicare card can receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and fully subsidised treatment in public hospitals. Visitors from countries which have reciprocal arrangements with Australia have limited access to Medicare.

 

Since 1999, the public health scheme has been supplemented by a Private Health Insurance Rebate, where the government funds at least 30% of any private health insurance premium covering people eligible for Medicare. Including these rebates, Medicare is the major component of the total Commonwealth health budget, taking up about 43% of the total. The program is estimated to cost $18.3 billion in 2007-08.[1] This figure is projected to rise by almost 4% annually in real terms over the next few years.[1]

[suv_guy_19]

Aussie system is similar but allows private health insurance.

Residents earning over $10,000 pa pay a 1.5% medicare levy on total income.

The government also rebates 30% of private medical insurance premiums.

 

 

Here, you are allowed insurance to ensure that you don't wait longer than a certain period, but as I said before, most of it is useless. You are also allowed private insurance for things like dental and eye care. There are some locations where you can pay for private care, but it varies from province to province. The coverage and cost in taxes also varies from province to province.

[nvsked]

Are you sure? Actually like banking, it’s what you do with the money. In terms of ROI, insurance is usually less than 5%, typically around 2-3% for health. It’s what you do with the premiums before you pay claims, investments.

 

however if more private insured's are placed on state/government provided health care with a low reimbursement rate - we will see rationing of care. Oh Canada!

 

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

 

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

 

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 47 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

 

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

[nvsked]

*Members of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance:

 

Marcia Angell, MD

Spokesperson

Past Editor | New England Journal of Medicine

Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine | Harvard Medical School

 

Quentin Young, MD

Convener

National Coordinator | Physicians for a National Health Program

Past President | American Public Health Association

 

Joel Alpert, MD

Past President | American Academy of Pediatrics

 

Ron Anderson, MD

President and CEO | Parkland Health & Hospital System

 

Peter Beilenson, MD, MPH

Commissioner | Department of Health, Baltimore City

 

Olveen Carrasquillo, MD, MPH

Advisory Committee Member | National Hispanic Medical Association

 

Christine Cassell, MD

Past President | American College of Physicians

 

Elinor Christiansen, MD

Past President | American Medical Women’s Association

 

Gary Dennis, MD

Past President | National Medical Association

 

David Himmelstein, MD

Associate Professor of Medicine | Harvard Medical School

 

Rodney Hood, MD

President | National Medical Association

 

Edith Rasell, MD, PhD

Minister for Labor Relations and Community Economic Development | United Church of Christ

 

Helen Rodriguez-Trias, MD (deceased)

Past President | American Public Health Association

 

Sindhu Srinivas, MD

National President | American Medical Student Association

 

Gerald Thomson, MD

Past President | American College of Physicians

 

Walter Tsou, MD, MPH

Past President | American Public Health Association

 

Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH

Associate Professor of Medicine | The Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School

[nvsked]

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_...h_insurance.php

 

Four principles shape our vision of reform.

 

 

1. Access to comprehensive health care is a human right. It is the responsibility of society, through its government, to assure this right. Coverage should not be tied to employment. Private insurance firms’ past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care.

 

2. The right to choose and change one’s physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional.

 

3. Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. The U.S. already spends enough to provide comprehensive health care to all Americans with no increase in total costs. However, the vast health care resources now squandered on bureaucracy (mostly due to efforts to divert costs to other payers or onto patients themselves), profits, marketing, and useless or even harmful medical interventions must be shifted to needed care.

 

4. In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decisions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats.

[nvsked]

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/SinglePayer101.pdf

 

Single payer refers to a way of financing health care, which includes both the collection of money for health care and reimbursement of providers for health care costs.

 

In the United States, there are multiple payers, not a single payer.

 

Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are example of countries with single payer financing of health care. There is also a single payer system in America: the Medicare program, which is the health insurance program for almost every American aged 65 and over.

 

Importantly, the term “single payer” is different from “socialized medicine” and “universal health care.”

 

Eligibility and Benefits:

Every resident of the United States would be enrolled in a public insurance system (the National Health Insurance or “NHI” program). Coverage would include all necessary medical care, including mental health, long-term illness, dental services, and prescription drugs. Coverage decisions would be determined by a national board of experts and community representatives; unnecessary or ineffective interventions would not be covered. Patients would not be billed for medical care covered under the NHI program; rather, all costs for covered services would be paid by the NHI program.

 

Financing:

The program would be funded by combining current sources of government health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) into a single fund with modest new taxes, such as a small payroll tax or earmarked income taxes. While taxes will increase for individual citizens, the increase will be offset by reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket spending. Employees may also receive higher wages from employers, who will no longer have to pay as much for health benefits as part of employee compensation (i.e. instead of paying employees in health benefits, employers will pay higher wages).

 

The philosophical argument for single payer

The U.S. health care system is driven largely by market forces, which are predicated on the profit motive. The theory behind the U.S. system is that private health insurance companies seeking to maximize profit will compete with each other, thus driving down costs.

How well does this theory work in practice? From 2000-2004, profits for the top 17 U.S. health insurance companies rose 114%; in contrast, the profits of companies in the S&P 500 (an index of 500 commonly owned stocks) rose 5% during the same period.3 Simultaneously, the number of uninsured individuals grew by six million people, and health insurance premiums rose 60%.3,4 Contrary to popular belief, the newly uninsured were overwhelmingly native citizens, not immigrants.5

This situation – private insurance companies making record profits while health insurance premiums and the number of uninsured skyrocket – suggests that insurance companies have an incentive to price people out of health care to maximize profit. The methods by which private health insurance companies achieve this include denial of insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, heavy utilization review, and “cherry-picking” (selectively insuring the healthy and charging higher premiums for the less healthy).2

LOBBYIST

In many other industrialized countries, including countries with single payer systems, there are nationally coordinated attempts to assess the cost-effectiveness of health technologies; the results of these evidence-based assessments are made into national policy. The same cannot be said of the United States. While there are various attempts at evidence-based assessment of health technology in America, the results of these assessments often do not substantially affect the practice of medicine. One reason is that specialists and manufacturers of technology have a disproportionate impact on whether a health insurance company covers new technologies, potentially blunting the effects of any evidence-based reports.11

 

The benefits of single payer are numerous, but they do not accrue to all sectors of society. Clearly, private health insurance companies do not stand to gain from a single payer system, as their role would be dramatically minimized. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry does not stand to gain from a single payer system because of the potential for price controls and bulk purchasing.

For most Americans, though, single payer would represent a clear improvement over the current system:

 

In summary, perhaps the strongest economic argument for single payer is that it gives policymakers the option of controlling costs. Whether they elect to use this option will be influenced by a democratic process that incorporates the needs of the American public.

 

Improved global competitiveness. The relief of the health care burden on businesses will help stimulate the economy and improve the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Currently, U.S. businesses are a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies, which have lower health care costs and therefore lower prices on their products.18

 

If society believes that equality and universality are important features of a health care system, then the current system is necessarily unacceptable. A single payer system would be a far better alternative

 

Enough said.

Edited December 30, 2008 by nvsked

[nvsked]

I currently have a 92 year old mother with a broken leg and hip in a skilled care unit. Outlook not too good.

 

I am aware of the BS of medicare and her secondary insurance also. Her bill is running over $200,000 and is being paid for by her Medicare and secondary insurance. If she had no insurance, she would be getting same care in her community. So we (as a society are paying for everyone now....one way or another). Why not have a formal program, that doesn't descriminate and humiliate those that fall thru the cracks....those with too much for medicade, and not enough assets to pay for good insurance.

 

Hi Ralph,

 

I too had a similar situation with my mother, may she rest in peace. I hope things work out for you and your family, but most of all I hope Mom is comfortable.

Part of the situation with my own mother is what jump started this crusade several years ago.

 

Peace and Blessings to you and your family.

[RangerM]

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

 

How is the price (for services rendered) determined; by the private care provider or the public/quasi-public agency?