“The whole world is in recession. But the United States is the only wealthy country in which the economic catastrophe will also be a health care catastrophe – in which millions of people will lose their health insurance along with their jobs, and therefore lose access to essential care,” wrote columnist Paul Krugman. He argued that “this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
107 Comments
Universal health care? You mean like Cuba and soon to be China? Nah, we can’t do that. America is all about killin’. Nobody wants to see Rambo patching some wounds, we want him to be killing anonymous people in their own lands for no reason whatsoever. That’s the American thing to do?
And who cares that the number one reason for bankruptcy is related to health care costs? There are dead rich people out there who need a tax cut and some bank CEOs need new $35,000 toilets. Priorities people. That’s why we have great leaders like Tiahrt who say no to health care for children, and no to health care for infants and pregnant women. If people want socialized health care then they need to be a congressman, just like Tiahrt.
The health care system in the U.S. must change drastically. The system is flat out broken. Doctors should not be allowed to work unsupervised any longer. Experienced nurses and pharmacests must be given more authority. The control of doctors over health care must be broken. And recognize that much of the medical insurance system is a web of fraud.
I don’t know how the system can be changed but there must be experts around who know what must be done.
The recent event with my mother-in-law has brought me back to how and what the insurance and medical system does to handle the elderly. Her medical condition critical, with several life threatening events happening at the same time. She resided in S.I.C.U. since before the surgery to remove the cancer from the brain.
Then the unthinkable occurred, her insurance refused to pay for any more treatment at Wesley hospital where she was. She was moved from one hospital to St. Francis that provided less care for a cheaper cost.
Today she is still alive, perhaps more that she is a fighter then the health care she is receiving though it is more to keep her without pain then to treat the threats to her life.
Is such the future of our health care? Or is this the current condition of our health care? Not a lacking of knowledge by the medical profession rather a matter of cost and willingness to pay by an insurance company.
I have made it plain where I stand on health care, in this the greatest of all countries. IT SHOULD BE A RIGHT. Else how can the United States of America call itself a civilized nation? Or as I have already implied we decide the care based on the value to the society as a whole.
In this economy incident is the life and well being of the worker whom has lost their job and their health insurance. Worth their continued life? Should we look at the available pool of similar workers and decide if there is a real need for this one worker? Such is the thought process of those whom oppose all encompassing health care.
Universal health care would be a done deal if it included money for Churches that offer healings, prayers, and exorcisms.
Most disease is caused by people “not being right with God”.
No Universal health care. I think we have the best system in the world. Along with added health care costs comes more government control and largesse. Leave it along.
Writerdog,
So you think your mother will get better care if EVERYONE has a right to it?
What world do you live in?
I believe that we could save a bundle in overall ’system’ costs with prevention and early treatment. Right now far too many uninsured end up in the ER after delaying rather than calling their (non-existant) family doctor early on. Coverage could prevent this.
If you want universal health care, prepare to sacrifice five to ten percent of your income. Many of us may get that back, though, as the burden is lifted from corporations and business. If you want to create jobs, universal health care is certainly one means through which to do it. The baby boomers are entering geezerhood, and it’s boing to take a lot of hand-holding, and blankies. Will the electric car of the future be a four-wheeled scooter? Around here, the old crips ride about on John Deere lawn mowers.
“I think we have the best system in the world. ” – george.
Gawd, there’s some good weed out there.
“If you want universal health care, prepare to sacrifice five to ten percent of your income.”
Between my employers and myself I think I pay about that much anyway.
Probably, bth. Many people do. Plus the co-pays, and deductibles, and all.
That’s a horrible belief Nathan…that in order for you to get healthcare, someone else needs to go without.
It doesn’t have to be that way. We can make it work as long as we keep republicans off of it and fund it adequately.
It might be just the key to stimulating the economy, to take the costs of healthcare off of the employers.
Anyone who thinks our healthcare system is the best in the world is ignorant.
Insurance is a rip off at the highest proportions. I went in for another epidural Thursday. I told Dr that I had received a letter saying they’d pay for the epidural, but not the SI injections. Last time I got the SI done too, I had double pain relief and it lasted twice as long too.
Dr said that if it worked well for me he’d do it anyway and eat the costs. He shouldn’t HAVE TO eat the costs. Don’t you realize that you’re subsidizing medicare/medicaid anyway because they don’t reimburse enough? And private pay are subsidizing insurance because the insurance negotiate a rate too.
We need to just tell docs that they’re going to earn x dollars for performing y.
You’re all for employers getting out of paying taxes because of this so called trickle down nonsense, but that hasn’t worked to stabilize the economy, they aren’t using the money to their workers to spend, they’re hoarding it. Take healthcare out of the equation and I’ll bet that the economy takes off.
“Nathaniel” asks –
“So you think your mother will get better care if EVERYONE has a right to it?”
I always suspected you had Mother issues, boy.
Political_mama
Posted January 31, 2009 at 8:16 am
I went in for another epidural Thursday. I told Dr that I had received a letter saying they’d pay for the epidural, but not the SI injections. Last time I got the SI done too, I had double pain relief and it lasted twice as long too.
What’s a SI injection?
Universal entitlement health care = a poor one size fits all health care, with your health placed in the hands of political bureaucrats instead of those trained to practice it.
Universal entitlement health care = ignorant health care consumer.
If we had universal health care, maybe I could afford to see my shrink more often than every three months, as I do now.
(removing tongue from cheek)
Time to push for universal care?
—–Absolutely
WSClark,
Next time you see RP McMurphy hanging around, ask for hints on how to ‘work’ mental health care. ;-)
Nathaniel what has been happening with my Mother-in-law is an example of deciding the level of health care based solely on cost and worth of the patent. We are not talking about cosmetic surgery for everyone.
It is basic and needed health care for human beings, fellow human being. As has been said “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”.
The cost of health care increases faster than a Doctor can make the decision as to the correct course of care. Perhaps the answer should be the jointing of all health care of the uninsured and under insured in to one central insurance policy. I am not so much saying the Government should administer it. But the foundation is established as to the coverage. We are already pay for as much, the cost of a hospital stay includes the cost to the hospital of caring for the uninsured. Or do you really think an aspirin cost five dollars? A simple plastic picket cost twenty dollars. Obviously they are not getting them at Wal-Mart. My tax dollars as well as yours goes to paying for this care too. Health care is a common concern for all of us and it is a very human concerns… a decent concern for all of us.
Least whenever you need care shall it be that your life and worth be the judge of whether you receive it. How much are you worth? Young and what is your work worth to the rest of us? But you have served your country is that not worth something to the rest of us? Sure but what are you doing now or lately? How long can we continue to let Regular ride on his service? He is older and having had a stroke recently of what service can he be now?
WE either judge everyone worth care or only those worth it to the rest of us. To judge by worth is more a socialist idea than Universal health care is.
Like we would have a choice anyway.
Let them eat cake.
The system is dead, every bit of it. From health care to finances to education. This is the final putsch.
I await the official Burning of the Constitution and the birthing of a New America!
It’s already done, we all just get to see it now.
Like we get a choice anyway.
Do you guys understand what you are saying? What program has the government run efficiently? Name one program. Universal health care will bankrupt the country. Everyone will go to the doctor for every little ailment. You will have to wait months to see the doctor because everyone else is going to see him. It will also cost everyone (who actually pays taxes) more for universal healthcare. Where do you think the government gets money? From us through taxes! Ask Canada, England, and Hawaii about universal health care. England actually has two systems because universal health care has destroyed the public system. Hawaii is dropping its system because prices increased astronomically. Universal health care would be a disaster. Go to China if you want free health care!
pleefer…
wwwwwaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhh!
Why stop with health care as a right?
I mean, for the very same reasons most of you argue for health care, why don’t we have universal food supplies? Water supplies? Housing? Transportation? Clothing?
Sure, health care will save someones life, but if we don’t have food, water, and shelter what good is health care?
Everyone should have a home, they should be given food, they should be given water, they should be given clothes.
Of course, everyone needs a job too.
Who are we to deny these basic rights to anyone? Place a value on who can live in a nice home and who can’t?
We should build government housing and everyone will be equal. We can all wear the same cloths, have access to the same amounts and types of foods, we will all drive the same cars.
When we are young the government can decide what jobs are needed and assign them to the children and ensure everyone serves their purpose in making this a better society.
Why stop with health care Comrades?
Actually some level of guaranteed housing and nutrition wouldn’t be a bad idea. Basically, the homeless cost us more in increased policing, health problems, etc than it would to simply house them.
Beber,
You assume, like many other liberals, that people are homeless because they have no choice.
The truth is that a good deal of people who are homeless are that way because of choice.
So, we just give them a home then? Who pays the bills on it? Who will pay the property tax? The water? electric? Gas?
When they don’t upkeep the place who will pay for the repairs?
Will we force them to work or allow them to loung around and drink all day?
What I don’t understand is that with all these issues like health care and now housing, you people argue that it is already costing us.
If that is the case, then why will it cost more to enact universal health care?
You argue we are already paying for it. Ok. So then why do we need universal health care then?
Nathan, Hitler had the solution you seek.
“The truth is that a good deal of people who are homeless are that way because of choice.”
That is not what church people I know who work with the homeless say.
Berber,turybury, boxlock20: I Just googled the Ontario Health Insurance Premiums, BY LAW EVERYONE IS IN, and it’s based on income: under $20M yearly income, no premiums, at $21M, monthly premiums are $5.00, at $50M the premiums are $50.00 and at $200.00 the premiums are $75.00. All services, treatment,tests and care are provided by private enterprise with all treatment dictated by the health care provider with no cap and the only thing the government does is pay the invoices. There is no “National Plan”, each province runs it’s own and this “government interference” or idea of the government making health decisions is a bogey man dreamed up by the insurance lobby. I experienced the system for a few years and it’s quite good and have family there who just love it! It covers major medical only, so one must buy private insurance for dental, optical, drugs and physio/therapy needed outside a hospital procedure/stay. That coverage used to cost about $50-100.00 a month, years ago and was tax deductible. When you hit 65 though, a lot of that was covered anyway and…. if you want to get defeatd in an election there, just discuss dropping universal insurace.
beber, i didn’t realize hitler targeted the homeless, i thought it was the jews. i will throw away my history books.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 31, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink
Why stop with health care as a right?
I mean, for the very same reasons most of you argue for health care, why don’t we have universal food supplies? Water supplies? Housing? Transportation? Clothing?
Sure, health care will save someones life, but if we don’t have food, water, and shelter what good is health care?
Everyone should have a home, they should be given food, they should be given water, they should be given clothes.
Of course, everyone needs a job too.
Who are we to deny these basic rights to anyone? Place a value on who can live in a nice home and who can’t?
We should build government housing and everyone will be equal. We can all wear the same cloths, have access to the same amounts and types of foods, we will all drive the same cars.
When we are young the government can decide what jobs are needed and assign them to the children and ensure everyone serves their purpose in making this a better society.
Why stop with health care Comrades?
=======================================================
You talk about me and straw man arguments? Have you checked unemployment statistics lately? Fleetwood, in an earlier thread, said get a job. Problem is, there are few jobs to be had in the real world. So all those families, with children, are supposed to sit there and crow about how great this country is? There is nothing “comrade” about wanting decent health care for your family.
It must be nice to have a well paying job, with a quality health insurance plan, and sit there posting “comrade”, while others are just trying to survive in this crisis. An estimated one in nine children in this country are without health care http://www.childrensdefense.org/ . That, in my opinion, is obscene. Whether it’s the parents fault or not, it’s the children that are suffering. And, yes, I am aware you are even against SCHIP.
Maybe you should go back, reread the bible about God’s words on children, then come back and tell me tithing whatever is necessary to see they get health care is going against the will of God.
Like I’ve said many times: Being against abortion, but throwing the children to the wolves after birth strikes me as totally hypocritical. When God asks you why you were against caring for the children, be sure to tell Him it just cost too much money. I’m sure He’ll understand.
I am well aware there are parents out there who would rather watch cable tv that provide for their children, but I would also imagine they’re in the minority.
I am also aware many adults, after being laid off, have little access to health care (the cost of COBRA is extremely high- mine will cost around $400 a month), and many will not be able to get it because of prior conditions. So we say, screw em, and let em rot? This economic condition is going to go on until late in 2010, or even longer. It is time for us to take care of the downtrodden in this country who are there through no fault of their own.
It is also time for the so-called Christians in this country to step up to the plate and do what’s right. Not doing so, in my opinion, means you will be answering to a much higher authority than any government figure.
Well said, JMWalker, well said.
george
Posted January 31, 2009 at 7:51 am | Permalink
No Universal health care. I think we have the best system in the world.
—
I think you have confused “best system” with “best medical talent.”
That the US has the best medical talent in the world is not the same thing as saying the US has the best system in the world.
For example, do all US citizens have access to the best medical talent in the US? No, they do not (many may not even need the services of the best talent because their illness isn’t related to the skill provided by the most talented).
And of course the best talent in the US very likely operates in a business model that doesn’t accept insurance payments and relies instead on full payment by consumers, on a retainer and/or pay-as-you-go basis. This isn’t true for top university talent (yet).
Back to the best “system” question. Surely we can all agree that the worst way to distribute healthcare is in an emergency room (because it implies a total lack of planning by the healthcare consumer). So ask yourself these questions.
If the US has the best system, why does it distribute so much service through emergency rooms?
Even without considering cost, the US does not have the best healthcare system in the world. Best talent? Sure. Best system? No way.
What the US has, without question, is the most expensive middle-tier healthcare system that is unable to match its best talent with patients.
Costly AND ineffective, but with GREAT talent.
good , now lets get the government to manage it.
Remember the welfare-reform from Clinton years? It was a great program with great success. It needs tweaking but it’s a good place to start. And, now I’ll give you some more of my eevil libarul thoughts. No matter how many of you see helping those less fortunate as socialistic, it isn’t. I hope none of you never need a hand up, but if you do I hope America is great enough to offer it.
I think it’s possible some don’t know how to be responsible.
When you send your kid off to college, s/he learns at least as much about living as the book knowledge they gain. No matter how well you think you have prepared them and helped them learn responsibility, there is nothing like being on your own to hammer home these lessons. They learn how to do laundry, pay bills, get along with roomies, buy food, etc. Usually, the college kid faces these real-life lessons within a framework that includes a safety net.
If a person grows up in a family that moves in the middle of the night to avoid the landlord, they may not know any other way of life. Life might have always been difficult enough that they just don’t know the simplest of skills. Yes, I think it should be a parent’s job! There are parents who don’t know how and can’t pass along what they’ve never known.
Instead of just providing money, food stamps or lodging we would do well to add very simple responsibilities and the lessons these teach within a framework that provides a safety net. I’m probably doing a poor job of explaining this but it goes back to that oft-quoted, “teach a man to fish.” Or the concept Habitat for Humanity is built around.
It would be important to treat all people with dignity and respect while they learn what is needed to grow and become contributors to society.
And NONE of the above addresses the many in today’s world that know how to be responsible, have for years contributed to society and today find themselves in dire straits for no fault of their own.
Nathaniel posted January 31, 2009 at 10:06 am
What I don’t understand. . .
————–
Nathaniel, nobody really expects you to understand. You’re a Republican, a Kansan, a fundie Christian, a gun-nut, and a U.S. Marine.
wichhick
Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:25 am | Permalink
good , now lets get the government to manage it.
—
Why does the US have the best medical talent in the world?
ANS: the government. More specifically, government managed education system that also underwrites primary research efforts in human biology.
Government manages best those goods defined by economists as public goods. The question is, is healthcare a public good?
If it is a public good – I think it is, otherwise why would our society simply deny care sans payment in all hospital emergency rooms — then the only entity that can manage its distribution to all citizens is government. This is true for another public good, primary research in human biology, which has resulted in the best medical talent in the world holding US citizenship.
I tend to go along with George Carlin- it’s not homelessness, it’s houselessness.
We’ve handed the banks untold billions and it’s only right that we get something in return. The reason the banks need our billions is because they’ve foreclosed on millions of houses that are now for all practical purposes unsellable. And yet here we are with people sleeping in abandoned warehouses and under bridges and some of them freezing to death. The disconnect is appalling!
We should get something in return for all those gigabucks besides executives with unearned bonuses. How about we get at least some of those empty houses and put them to use sheltering people who are houseless. And also nationalize a few surplus country clubs while we’re at it, and employ all those laid off construction workers to build affordable low-income houses on them for those who can’t meet the overinflated interest payments foisted on them by those banks who are now demanding a welfare state for business.
Here’s a heuristic, one which while simple is not oversimplified, imo.
Assume these 2 things are true:
1. US healthcare is broken due to poor distribution and hospital costs rising faster than inflation,
2. US healthcare is not a public good.
If these 2 are true, then it seems to me the fastest way to “fix” healthcare is to refuse treatment in US hospital emergency rooms unless the hospital can guarantee payment first. Emergency care should be pay as you go, otherwise we’ll never get hospital costs under control.
I’m sure there’s some wiggle room, but we need to decide first if we are at all responsible for our fellow citizens’ health. If we have no responsibility to our fellow man, then we are fools if we don’t force hospitals to stop spreading costs to those who pay (including health insurance companies). And of course no one should be vaccinated without payment first.
If on the other hand we do hold some responsibility for our fellow citizens then we need to realize that without government involvement it will always be underfunded (costs will always escalate faster than inflation, always) and undersupplied (we’ll never distribute healthcare to all who need it).
“…by those banks who are now demanding a welfare state for business.”
Silly you, trying to act like it’s welfare when it goes to business!
Beeb,
“If you want universal health care, prepare to sacrifice five to ten percent of your income.”
Hell, I have one single prescription that costs almost twenty percent of my income right now. You’re offering me a better than fifty percent cut right there!
“…the fastest way to “fix” healthcare is to refuse treatment in US hospital emergency rooms unless the hospital can guarantee payment first.”
I like it! It goes along with the citizens of the state you represent declining any part of the stimulus package if you represented your state by voting against it!
Linda,
“Silly you, trying to act like it’s welfare when it goes to business!”
Hey, if the foo sh*ts……..!
If healthcare is not a public good, then we are fools if we don’t force US hospitals to turn away anybody who can’t pay for hospital services, including emergency room treatment.
If you can’t pay, you can’t get treated in the emergency room or anywhere else in the hospital. Anybody can pay the money (churches for example), but it must be paid first: a payment guarantee must be foremost in US healthcare.
We either embrace this bit of draconian healthcare economics or suffer escalating costs and poor distribution, it seems to me. (And this, by the way, is why Republics are on the losing side of the “free” national healthcare debate — it’s just a matter of time.)
“If you want universal health care, prepare to sacrifice five to ten percent of your income.”
For most people, this would be 5-10% of an income that’s been raised quite a bit because you no longer have to pay for your own health insurance.
For a lot of Americans, especially those who pay 100% of their own health insurance premium, this is probably a very good deal….and a wash at worst.
“if we don’t force US hospitals to turn away anybody who can’t pay for hospital services, including emergency room treatment”
Fork over $500 or take that bloody stump of an amputated arm outta here!
Has the universal health care in other countries worked?
I guess it’s better than nothing. It works for our veterans I guess (not really). In many cases Universal Health care is NOTHING, because if you are denied care (because of the cost), there are no alternatives. The laws prevent you from paying the doctor to treat you to stay alive. The sacrifice of one for the good of many and you exhale too much CO2. Once doctors are government employees that were going to see some “change.” Good luck citizens/comrades if you allow this to take place.
Writer I didn’t read the entire blog on this but felt I had to comment on your first post. I recently lost my own mom. What you described did happen. But it wasn’t private insurance or doctors that did it. It was gov ran Medicare. She only had so many days in the hospital and then could be moved to skilled nursing care for so many days and then to a nursing home for the remainder of her life.
This was government universal healthcare in action. Her doctor tried everyway possible to keep her in the hospital where she got better care but the gov said ’she has to go’.
You are talking about this level of healthcare for us all. Sometimes we shouldn’t wish to hard. We might just get what we asked for.
okie is right. We should immediately do away with Medicare and probably Social Security to boot.
My son told me a horror story he experienced first hand recently. A friend of theirs who is fifty years old and suffering from some exotic disease with only some recently released treatments was sent a letter from the State Of Oregon where he is now getting treatment through medicaid. This letter told him they didn’t cover the treatment he needed because it was too expensive. They would however cover his medical treatment to get assisted suicide treatment from a doctor.
What have we come to? Is this the direction universal healthcare is taking us?
Alphabet man if you can’t contribute something to the discussion why don’t you just not contribute.
I agree with you okie! We should do away with Medicare/Medicaid/ and the VA. The government has no business being in the health care business.
Granny,
I’ve got friends, Mennonite nurses from Canada who come here to volunteer their services to the poor, and every one of them has asked me “How on earth do you Americans survive with this horrible healthcare system of yours?”
Some coverage of the issue,
http://worldfocus.org/blog/tag/health-of-nations/
mwadeb
Posted January 31, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
Has the universal health care in other countries worked?
I guess it’s better than nothing. It works for our veterans I guess (not really). In many cases Universal Health care is NOTHING, because if you are denied care (because of the cost), there are no alternatives. The laws prevent you from paying the doctor to treat you to stay alive. The sacrifice of one for the good of many and you exhale too much CO2. Once doctors are government employees that were going to see some “change.” Good luck citizens/comrades if you allow this to take place.
—
Like you, many US citizens equate “good” healthcare with a privately owned insurance policy. Many people (and not just Americans) really need to believe that they can always have an option for healthcare that’s not available to others (for example, those who cannot pay).
Lots of people really need to believe that enough dollars can provide them the freedom to avoid things nobody can avoid (staying young, vigor, absence of disease, impassable roads, etc., and including rationed healthcare resources).
I’d be shocked if “free” national healthcare laws didn’t allow US citizens to purchase health insurance riders (riding on top of their “free” national healthcare policy).
Yall seem to be saying that only a perfect health care can replace our (incredibly) imperfect current one.
Don’t let “perfect “be the enemy of good.
JM Walker,
How many different ways do I have to explain to you what a strawman argument is?
I guess you seen me say you used one, so now you think you are cool by merely throwing the label around back at me. I understand.
The only problem is that you still have no clue about logic or what logical fallacies are.
Try looking up “strawman argument” and then explain to me how my post was one.
whoosh!
(the air passing through Nathan’s ears)
JM Walker,
Christians in this country have been stepping up to the plate for some time now.
Who do you think runs all those food drives, donations, and banks?
Who do you think volunteers to feed and cloth and help the poor?
The Christians in this country have been and continue to help the needy.
You liberals think that helping the poor is taking money from others and then redistributing it and calling that charity.
If you want to help the poor then do it with your own money, your own time, and with your own resources.
Taking if from someone else and then patting yourself on the back for a job well done is absurd.
I have a heart. I have compassion. I do it with my own money and my own resources and my own time.
Where do you think all this money is going to come from for this socialist utopia you liberals dream of?
You can take and take and take from others for only so long.
From cosmos’s link above:
—
Edie Magnus: We were in a hospital that was affiliated with McGill University, and it was a regional system that had six hospitals that were affiliated with one another, and they annually have some 39,000 inpatients, and they do about 34,000 surgeries and they deliver about 3,000 babies. And managing all of this is a staff of 12 people doing the billing, the administration. What would an equivalent hospital in the U.S. take to run administratively?
Uwe Reinhardt: You’d be talking 800, 900 people, just for the billing, with that many hospitals and being an academic health center. We were recently at a conference at Duke University and the president of Duke University, Bill Brody, said they are dealing with 700 distinct managed care contracts. Now think about this. When you deal with that many insurers you have to negotiate rates with each of them. In Baltimore, they are lucky. They have rate regulations, so they don’t have to do it. But take Duke University, for example, has more than 500,000 and I believe it’s 900 billing clerks for their system.
—
The US healthcare system is fat, fat, fat. As anybody who’s been through a successful business acquisition knows, there is an awful lot of gold to be mined in acquiring a fat company with guaranteed customers, ceteris paribus.
From 900 billing clerks (US) to 12 (Canada). Repeat for each US hospital, and you’re talking about some seriously large low hanging fruit.
JM Walker,
And if you want to start talking about the Bible, then perhaps you should actually quote it to me.
Tell me the verses you are talking about.
Because you ignore most of the Bible and take only what makes you feel good.
Then liberals like you come on here and start talking about reading the Bible?
Take your own advice.
Edie Magnus: When we pay a medical bill, how much of that bill goes to these kinds of administrative costs?
Uwe Reinhardt: Well, in general what you’ll find in our official statistics, we’re spending 7 percent on administration, but that only accounts for the insurers’ administrative costs and that includes Medicaid, which burns only two percent of its money throughput on administration. On the other hand, Medicare and Medicaid both cost the hospitals administrative costs that are booked as medical care, but it’s really administrative costs.
Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Harvard did a study comparing Canada and the U.S. looking at what it costs employers, providers, doctors and hospitals and the insurance mechanism and compared Canada and the US, and they found that we in 1999, spent $300 billion on administration for all these three functions, and that was about 24 percent of national health spending there, but they say it was actually 31 percent because of the fraction of spending that they could actually identify and link to administrative costs. So they came to 31. So it’s somewhere between 25 and 30 percent that goes for administration and it doesn’t even include the patients’ time of billing. Anyone who has had anyone really sick in their family knows how much time you spend haggling over the bills and they have none of that in these systems.
—
$300 billion in 1999 healthcare dollars is what, $778 billion in 2009 healthcare dollars (assuming a constant average yearly healthcare inflation rate of 10%…which is low, I believe).
A quarter of trillion dollars to be saved in year one, at a minimum. That is indeed some seriously large low hanging fruit.
Pedant,
I think you need to find another source, those figures are bogus.
Most medical centers and hospitals I’ve been to have very small billing staffs. A lot of billing is consolidated in ‘centers’ that handle many hospitals unaffiliated with each other.
I have two bills on my desk for co-pay. One is from California and the other from Illinois. Both are regional billing centers for various medial facilities.
Your article is about two decades behind the times in knowing the reality.
mwdeb: Nonsense, the idea being denied care does not exist where I was the benefactor of universality for the aims and objects of universal coverage is timely, quality care based soley on need and not the ability to pay. Where do you get this doctors being government employees thing anyway? Read my post of 10:42 AM, then cosmos_originallys’ post of 1.41 PM.
Regular
Posted January 31, 2009 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Pedant,
I think you need to find another source, those figures are bogus.
Most medical centers and hospitals I’ve been to have very small billing staffs. A lot of billing is consolidated in ‘centers’ that handle many hospitals unaffiliated with each other.
I have two bills on my desk for co-pay. One is from California and the other from Illinois. Both are regional billing centers for various medial facilities.
Your article is about two decades behind the times in knowing the reality.
—
From the article: “Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Harvard did a study comparing Canada and the U.S. looking at what it costs employers, providers, doctors and hospitals and the insurance mechanism and compared Canada and the US, and they found that we in 1999, spent $300 billion on administration for all these three functions…”
Hmmm, who should I believe, Harvard’s study or you and your two invoices. Choices, choices, choices….
The billing clerk numbers are for academic hospitals (Canada’s McGill vs. our Duke). Read the article, carefully.
#
Pedant
Posted January 31, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
From the article: “Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Harvard did a study comparing Canada and the U.S. looking at what it costs employers, providers, doctors and hospitals and the insurance mechanism and compared Canada and the US, and they found that we in 1999, spent $300 billion on administration for all these three functions…”
Hmmm, who should I believe, Harvard’s study or you and your two invoices. Choices, choices, choices….
The billing clerk numbers are for academic hospitals (Canada’s McGill vs. our Duke). Read the article, carefully.
====================================
Right, and you just admitted the final report is from 1999, which means the data collected for the report is even older.
If you walk into Wesley’s billing center right now, the most I’ve ever seen is about three people. They contract out their work to regional centers now, just like other hospitals.
Academic hospitals…who cares?
You were trying to give added weight to the ‘universal care’ argument.
You failed, because the study you referenced is out of date and doesn’t apply to today’s methods.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 31, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
Christians in this country have been stepping up to the plate for some time now.
Who do you think runs all those food drives, donations, and banks?
Who do you think volunteers to feed and cloth and help the poor?
The Christians in this country have been and continue to help the needy.
You liberals think that helping the poor is taking money from others and then redistributing it and calling that charity.
If you want to help the poor then do it with your own money, your own time, and with your own resources.
Taking if from someone else and then patting yourself on the back for a job well done is absurd.
I have a heart. I have compassion. I do it with my own money and my own resources and my own time.
Where do you think all this money is going to come from for this socialist utopia you liberals dream of?
You can take and take and take from others for only so long.
=================================================
Meanwhile, one in nine children in this country, the richest nation on earth, are without health insurance.
Charities are wonderful, and I contribute to them when I can, such as United Way. But with the current economic crisis, and millions out of work, charity can only go so far.
There are 4.8 million people on unemployment as of now. It is estimated only 38% of the unemployed are on unemployment. That leaves 62% of the unemployed who have either used up their unemployment, and can’t find jobs, or are ineligible because of work history, which could mean about anything. That number is expected to grow at an alarming rate during the next fiscal year, with numbers reaching 10% of the work force or greater.
If all those people are unemployed, who is going to have the funds to donate to charity? How about those Wall Street wizards you seem to think are the cats meow? Didn’t they get billions in bonuses last year after destroying the economy? Do you expect the unemployed to donate the money the government gives them, for survival at the basic level, and give it to charities? Get real.
You seem to have a penchant for delivering whatever label you want on any term that suits you. I could care less what you call strawman. My argument stands on its own. Semantics is hardly the problem, is it.
Now IS the time when the haves should be reaching out to their fellow Americans in need by any means possible. If that means government intervention, and universal health care, I’m all for it. If you see a child on the street, suffering from some disease costing major dollars to cure, are you going to pay for that cure yourself, or get a bunch of donors to take care of it? Multiply that by millions, and a picture starts emerging. Maybe it’s time to consider government funded health care as charity; it might be easier for you so-called Christians to swallow.
I have no doubt this is falling on deaf ears, but that’s not either my, nor this threads, problem. It is, however, those one out of nine children.
Academic hospitals are important because that’s where primary research done. It’s also where lots of free hospital care is distributed. For example, if you’re unfortunate enough to be both dirt poor and to suffer from some malady of interest to academic researchers then the odds are excellent that you will be treated at no cost.
If Wesley employs 3 billing clerks, then you’re right and I’m wrong.
However, Wesley employs considerable more than 3. Maybe not 900, but I’m sure they employ so many that you’ll never see them because they’re all off in their own admin wing. I would bet a house that Wesley employs an army of billing clerks due to the reasons delineated in the article….which you failed to read.
Right?
Edie Magnus: I know that there’s some dispute about all those numbers, about what percentage of our spending the administrative costs represent, but you have said that with what America could be saving in administrative costs, that it could completely fund universal health care for all Americans.
Uwe Reinhardt: Oh yes, I’m totally convinced of that.
Edie Magnus: How is that possible?
Uwe Reinhardt: Well for one, many insurance companies have a nomenclature that when they issue a bill, when the hospital issues a bill, the insurance company can’t understand it. So there are entities, enterprises that translate that from the insurance companies’ nomenclature into the hospitals’ nomenclature and vice versa.
Edie Magnus: Alright, but tell us, I’m not sure my mother would understand this explanation…
Well I mean, just imagine a hospital sees a horse and it says I code that as H-O-R-S-E, and the insurance company uses French for that, C-H-E-V-A-L, and now the computers, they can’t mesh this unless there is a translator in between who says “Oh, horse for that insurance company means cheval.”
Edie Magnus: And this goes on every day between hospitals and insurers?
Uwe Reinhardt: This goes on every day. They don’t understand the way that they “code” things.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 31, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
And if you want to start talking about the Bible, then perhaps you should actually quote it to me.
Tell me the verses you are talking about.
Because you ignore most of the Bible and take only what makes you feel good.
Then liberals like you come on here and start talking about reading the Bible?
Take your own advice.
======================================================
There you go again: Telling me what I believe or don’t believe. I don’t recall ever sharing my personal believes with you, other than evolution and the age of the universe, and I have no intention of doing so. That is between God and myself.
You seem to know the bible so well (didn’t you claim to have studied theology for some five years?), you shouldn’t have to ask me. You know what I am referring to. But to satisfy your penchant for biblical references, I offer this: http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm
#
Pedant
Posted January 31, 2009 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
Academic hospitals are important because that’s where primary research done. It’s also where lots of free hospital care is distributed. For example, if you’re unfortunate enough to be both dirt poor and to suffer from some malady of interest to academic researchers then the odds are excellent that you will be treated at no cost.
If Wesley employs 3 billing clerks, then you’re right and I’m wrong.
However, Wesley employs considerable more than 3. Maybe not 900, but I’m sure they employ so many that you’ll never see them because they’re all off in their own admin wing. I would bet a house that Wesley employs an army of billing clerks due to the reasons delineated in the article….which you failed to read.
Right?
=========================
I’m sure they employ more than three people. three or four shifts more than likely – so maybe 12 people or so.
If you lived in Kansas, you could check it out for yourself. It’s just up the hall from the Emergency room.
The Ophthalmologist and Optometrist I went to see, also send their billing out of state. (Greene Vision Centers – There’s like 10 centers in Wichita – but billing is handled out of state.)
Grene Vision center…
We don’t have universal healthcare that is what greed causes. If the exotic treatment is exotic enough to be valid or research, then it should be covered or paid for. Obviously if the state of Oregon thinks that it is worthy of physician assisted suicide letter, it must be pretty bad, and very little hope. I’m sorry for the kid, but I’m not willing to pay for someone’s wild goose chase. Make it research and let them pay for it.
Actually I believe sex should be a right. Our government, which can provide us everything in life, should be constitutionally required to provide us sex.
A good shot of a$$ is something we can all agree is a need in life, like breath itself.
It is a crime that sex costs so much. Be it a wife and all the baggage which comes the that, or a girlfriend you have to wine and dine.
The cost of sex is just too expensive.
Our Gawd, the government should be regulating and requiring that we all are entitled to sex.
I believe, RoaCH, that you might want to have a sit-down with your shrink…….. a long one.
Hey WSClark,
When you get back you should visit the concerts at the Zoo this summer…If I recall right during one of our brief Blues conversations you said you haven’t been.
Well, I’m signing out. Going to play a little G-tar..I’ll catch up with ya sometime WSC.
That’s what I’m talking about Clark, A LONG ONE!!!!
It’s a gawd given constitutional right.
“If I recall right during one of our brief Blues conversations you said you haven’t been.”
I will be there if they are playing the blues, ANTI. I can’t wait to get home to Kansas.
One more week, hopefully.
RoaCH
Posted January 31, 2009 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
Actually I believe sex should be a right. Our government, which can provide us everything in life, should be constitutionally required to provide us sex.
Roach April 15th is coming up and when you see the amount of taxes. Then you will have the feeling that the government is wanting to sex you up! It will be my hope the Obama tax cuts do not have the same effects on me as the Bush tax cuts. I can not afford to pay more!
People can always exercise their 2nd Amendment rights on the hospital staff when they get refused service or when it wipes out their saving and costs them homes. I think that’s what were heading for if health care isn’t fixed soon, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen it already
Remember the days of HMO running amuck? I remember well more than once a Doctor telling me that the HMO would not pay for something that he felt needed to be done. Talk about not wanting a Washington bureaucrat deciding what medical treatment you receive it is no better when a company accountant does it either. Would universal health care be any better? I don’t know, would it be any worst I do not know that either. Would it be as the horror story OKO and I recounted about the patent is deemed not worth the cost of proper treatment. That is a danger in it but then it is already being done and has in the past as I have pointed out.
One thing I will admit, with the cost not being a concern for Democratic the care would be better then if the current version of the Republican Party were running it. There would need to be standards set and advised by Doctors whom are truly more concern about patent health then the cost. There would be a need for tort reform concerning malpractice. I do not hear the talk, as much lately about it is the cause of higher medical cost.
Is is long PAST time for universal health insurance. I’m tired of paying extra so people like Nathan can go to the doctor when they have a splinter.
Anyone who thinks the gooberment can run health care must be too stupid to have an opinion worth listening to. If you are a responsible person who is willing to work you can have a good job with insurance, and you can get the best health care in the world. If you are a worthless slug who won’t work you deserve what you get – zip. Our health care system is Darwinian – and there is nothing wrong with that!
“I can not afford to pay more!”
Yes you can WriterDog. The government must have more money to provide the FREE healthcare universal plans require.
Not to mention limited treatment. If your mother in law or whomever, does not have a “life expectancy” or “quality” of life minimum score, they will not get the treatments they need.
Not to worry. I will get the government to pay for my sex. By golly it’s a gawd given constitutional right!!! Just like free healthcare.
From what I hear, the plan is not going to be universal. The plan is to force those who have healthcare insurance available via an employer – will be FORCED to pay and sign up for the program.
Employers, in turn, will get tax breaks and assistance to offer plans for all employees.
There is no free lunch.
If you smoke or drink, then too bad. You deserve to die under the univeral plan. Eat too many big Mac’s?
Sorry charlie. You don’t get FREE healthcare. You are put at the bottom of “the list”.
Your appointment will be a short three years down the road.
You know when you go to a popular resturaunt and get a device which will light up or beep when your number comes up? Make sure you have lot’s of batteries.
RoaCH repeats a common talking point of the Right-wing (i.e., a lie): gov’t health care will cost more.
False. It will cost less. Because the money that we’re paying through our employer, we’d no longer have to pay.
Germany’s system costs 2/3rds as much as ours. It also uses private insurers but through a gov’t controlled system.
Britain’s is about 1/2 the cost of ours, and the old horror stories of long waits are history.
Taiwan only spends 6 percent of GDP on health care. We spend 16 percent on health care.
And you know what else? Those three systems have better prevention, better outcomes and lead to longer life spans.
As health care experts around the globe agreed in a documentary Sick Around the World, America doesn’t have a health care system–America has what you’d get if you didn’t have a system.
I want my universal sex plan! By golly it’s a right!
And we all know the government is good at everything.
Heck, free healthcare will be utopia!!!! All it takes is passing gas (I mean an act), and the government will take care of all your ills.
So I want my free government sex!
I know I will trust the government to decide on my surgery – after they get all our personal information on file. You bet. Trust the government to take care of your healthcare. They will pull the right teeth – just like they build toilets for jets which cost $700.00…
So give me my constitutional right to FREE Sex!!!
“There would be a need for tort reform concerning malpractice. I do not hear the talk, as much lately about it is the cause of higher medical cost.”- WD
———-
Don’t expect tort reform to be a part of any national health care plan that Obama promotes. The trial lawyers are big Obama contributors and will need to be fed.
And there would be the government bureaucrats deciding for you how limited health care resources are going to be rationed. So if you think you and your Dr. will be in control of your health care, think again. Not a pleasant prospect.
Because the money that we’re paying through our employer, we’d no longer have to pay.
__________________________________________________
If I squeeze your head Capn will sheet come out all over?
You have not a clue what you are posting. No proof. No facts. Nothing.
And let’s look closely at the taxes – including sales taxes Germans are paying.
Nothing in life is free.
Any idiot who tells you that is a liar.
Deep down you know better. Someone offers you something which is too good to be true. You know it is not.
The buracracy will be unbelievable. Wait until Uncle Obama has your personal health records. He will know when you had those shots for the veneral diseases. He will know when you had your abortions – and the father of the fetus because they will have all our DNA.
Big brother, oh brother.
Let Capn sell you some swamp land. I’m not biting.
On the positive side, I suppose that national health care could promote a boom in entrepreneurial activity. Folks who were tethered to an employer because they were afraid to do without health insurance would be free to pursue their ideas.
national health care plan that Obama promotes.
—————————————–
Inclued MANDATORY participation by workers. Yep, you ARE going to pay.
But that’s o.k., how much is your life worth anyway.
be free to pursue their ideas.
——————————————-
You mean quit. And hope to gawd they get another job.
Yeah. Like that’s going to happen.
Roach–
How much do you and your employer pay for health care right now?
Imagine if instead of 15 percent of that money going to “administrative overhead,” only 2 percent of it did.
That’s the percentage cost of successful programs in industrialized countries around the world today.
Of course, national health care isn’t free. It’s just cheaper than what we’re paying for now.
Outlander, that’s a very good point.
Roach I have to say that with the current flap over the stimulus package (BTW I would not have voted for it either) The Congressional Dems submarine Obama in what he wanted and he should have handed them the bill he wanted. Rather then leaving it up to them to come up with it. But as far as it be as you have repeated and it is solely a baseless extreme right talking point. Obama has stated his idea of health insurance would not be a forced program for those whom already have insurance they like. Either through their employer or privately acquired.
He would give tax credits for those employers would provide good insurance and those whom acquire it for their employees. For the elderly it is already happening where their care is being judged on their value to society. Old and retired you are only deserving of the care needed to stop pain and not much more. Sadly it is many of the Doctors themselves whom have made these judgments.
Frequently, and here today, the argument is offered…
“Well? What ELSE should be universal? Housing? Food?
As if it is a given that people should go without shelter or sustenance! It is past time to free our people of the slavery of having to rely on an exploitive employer for their food,shelter, and health care.
But . . . but . . . but, BlueJ,
If gov’t provided people with a subsistance living, then rich people would be slightly less rich to pay for it.
Interestingly, the percent of wealth flowing to the top 1 percent is just about exactly the same now as it was in 1930 in the first stages of the Depression.
And now we’re in the worst recession since 1930 . . . hmmm . . . I’m sure there’s no connection between those two facts.
Yeah Capn.
I have to remember. The cons LIKE pain and suffering on people. It keeps the churches full and wages and working conditions depressed.
Blind repub idealogy, like welfare to the insurance companies, is what’s keeping us from a less expensive single-payer system. I’m sure everyone in the world knows by now that even though big ins absconds with thirty one percent of our health dollars they contribute zilch, zero, nada to the welfare of patients, in fact they are a hindrance. If we eliminate big ins our health care system would be far better than the present “market driven” plan.
If you are a responsible person who is willing to work you can have a good job with insurance, and you can get the best health care in the world.
Tell that to the Boeing, Spirit, Hawker Beechcraft, Coleman, and Cessna workers getting laid off. Responsibility and willingness to work is getting them NO JOBS.
“Of course, national health care isn’t free. It’s just cheaper than what we’re paying for now.”
That may be a matter of perspective. Of course, for those of low income or medium income, the big entitlement guru’s – democrats will ensure that SOMEone else pays the price for health insurance.
But this would be a new entitlement program. Every entitlement program ends up costing more than early estimates. And early estimates on the universal healthcare range from a low of 104 billion in FY10 on up. (Commonwealth Fund est.).
This, at a time when our nation is adding a trillion dollars of new debt – with gimmic programs, without a permanent revenue stream to support the “pay as you go” democrat mantra (which they have conveniently waived on all the bills).
This does not include the price of the new layer of federal paperwork, government employees to monitor, and a new departmental level position to monitor. Added paperwork and stops consumers would have to go to gain that FREE service, would quickly make the program a monster.
Instead, simply provide funding for those truly poor who do not have health care insurance (and remember they have access to care – it is insurance we are talking about). This would include temporary coverage for those who qualify for unemployment. Covering the 10% of Americans without insurance would be vastly more “affordable” and reasonable, than attempting to throw out the baby with the bath water.
You pay too much for health insurance and co-pays?
So what. People pay too much for SUV’s, wide screen TV’s, blackberries, cable service, and a myriad of other “nice” to have products.
As I’ve posted before, “How much more important is your health and your families health?” It should rightly be the highest item in your budget.
We all need food to live, so shouldn’t we pay even more for groceries than health care? Maybe food should be the highest ticket item in our budget? How about water?
There is no reason why healthcare should be so outrageous….take out all the middle men who are getting rich on the current system and the cost will go down so that most everyone can afford it.
When drug and insurance companies are reigned in, that will be a start.
….take out all the middle men who are getting rich on the current system…..When drug and insurance companies are reigned in
There is nothing being proposed to accomplish what you are complaining about. Further, the government getting into healthcare will ensure more middle men will be making decision on our private healthcare
Roach,
“So give me my constitutional right to FREE Sex!!!”
Sorry, but there’s no such thing as free sex that involves a partner. And there’s a whole porn industry intent on cashing in on the kind that doesn’t require one. Fraid yer outa luck there!