Guess What? Health Care Is Expensive…
c/o Michael Ramirez, IBD Editorials
Senate Democrats have been looking for some way, any way, to decrease the costs of their health care reform bill.
Their solutions have been less than exemplary. First, they basically cut out the already uninsured. Not really morally fulfilling. Then, they cut here and there, and artificially brought the cost down. But there were so many holes in that plan, it was basically useless. Now, House Democrats led by Charlie Rangel are proposing the largest tax increase in American History: a 4% surcharge on all income over $250,000. I am doubtful that kind of class warfare will fly either. And taxing health care benefits is even less popular.
A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed only 20 percent of respondents support the tax and a Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent opposed it. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 54 percent of respondents oppose the new tax. Not exactly broad based support.
I go back to my initial statements about health care several months ago. Facts are, you can’t cover 10% more people and not spend more money. The initial costs of universal health care reform is enormous, and by my calculations a realistic 10 year projection is $2 trillion. I would be shocked if the actual number (not CBO numbers, mind you, but actual real life costs) is one cent less than that.
All of the so called cost cutting measures so far have been, frankly, half measures. The Obama White House, along with VP Joe Biden, applauded a deal with hospitals to save $155 billion over the next decade on Medicare and Medicaid. You know what a joke that is? That accounts for less than 1% of all the costs involved with health care reform. The Democrats are playing on the fringes, without dealing with the heart of the matter. There is only one cost cutting measure that in the long term is practical, real, and will work: rationing. Every country with national health care knows this. The truth is, Canada rations. England rations. Every country rations.
Even Medicare, the standard by which Democrats keep pointing to, has come under fire. The Heritage Foundation issued a report by Robert A. Book, Ph.D., showing that on a per-person basis Medicare’s administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance–this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. Thus, the exemplary cost cutting standard that Democrats are using…is not cheaper.
If we really want a universal health care system, the majority of people in this country are going to have to sacrifice. Yes, you and I, the general population, will have to actually give up something to provide care to those that don’t have it now. There is no other way.
It appears Democrats (and frankly, Republicans) are unwilling to state this simple fact. There is no magical wand for Barack Obama to wave over the country, and allow people to get the same level of care they receive now for the entire public, without spending oodles of money we don’t have. And the public, ironically, is smart enough to realize this. That is why they are resisting the ridiculous work-arounds that the Democrats are proposing to artificially reduced the cost of health care to below $1 trillion.
I wish there was one politician, of either party, that had the courage to simply state the facts. Republicans want no part of this. And the Democrats, President Obama included, are too cowardly to face the public and tell them the hard truths. Until those truths are openly debated, I feel that real health care reform is doomed. Steny Hoyer probably came closest…he stated no one would vote for the bill if they actually read it…that is honesty, in some fashion. Personal decision making, which ultimately is the best cost saver (you make people pay out of pocket, they think twice…) is not a part of Obamacare at all…and that is disappointing.
But, considering the joke of a plan put together by Democrats, that may not be a bad thing. I repeat: a bad bill is worse than no bill at all. And the Democrats are trying to achieve the impossible: they could actually make the health care system in the United States worse than it is today. An impressive, albeit shocking, achievement.
How can anyone complain about the cost of their taxes if a few extra dollars will provide life-saving medical treatments to someone’s mother; father; child; sibling or grandparent who couldn’t afford it otherwise.
Government is obligated to rovide every oportunity possible to make the economic playing field fair for everyone, by providing opportunities and support for individuals to be successful, but all that is for nought if a sudden illness or injury can take away everything that the individual has struggled to achieve.
Basic Life sustaining Health Care should be free to all Americans. This should include treatments such as chemotherapy; open heart surgery; organ transplants; etc., etc.
The question is how to integrate private health care insurance providors into the system so that they may still sell insurance for premium health care services while preventing medical treatment facilities from denying care to publicly funded individuals. Health care benefits have been taxed in other countries, because it is widely recognized as a income enhancement vehicle and is taxable. Employer funded Health Care Benefits Plan is an income, regardless of what you call it or how you package it.
BTW, I think the US Gov. should subsidize post-secondary schools much more significantly so that it is accessible to all.
You can use that argument for anything. Why can’t the middle class pay 5% more in taxes for the poor then? It is the argument of consumption…you can only consume as much as you can.
We only have so much money. People need to start realizing that. Is health care a moral imperative? To me it is. But that said, gov’t does a lot that it shouldn’t. You have to give up something to have the things that are more important.
Our Government could do much worse for us: They could give the equivalent of the Veterans Administration Hospitals. Of the few places the new President wished to cut were veterens benefits and care for these same people, who for little money and great sacrifice, put their lives on the line to defend the interests of this nation should ‘our Government’ decide they be needed in time of war. If this was the reward and concern for the people that give the most for the least return then what will be the outcome for those that receieve already and do little in return?!?
There are many areas that require true reform. Healthcare needs reform but not in expansion to all. Insurance being mandated is a nightmare. The impact on the people who can afford these new costs the least will be horrendous. Like the cash for clunkers program that will give people new vehicle insurance bills that will raise rates far in excess of what their ‘clunkers’ cost: the return on investment will be a net debit. I posit that most people will be inclined to acquire more car than they will reasonably be able to afford. The costs incurred with inflationary increases will be devastating. The worst thing they all could do is mandate and force coverage. This immediately affects the supply demand equation and the impact will be no choice pay outs. Unlike being able to choose not to own a car or less car as long as one lives they will be forced to have coverage. Will unemployment or no employment be able to help one afford these costs? One benefit may be that people who can not afford to have children will curb their reproduction.
How do the people in our government even dream of these rediculous concepts after they destroyed the economy? The answer is insulation. They live differently than regular people. They give themselves plans of healthcare and retirement better than for everyone else.
Let us save money: Take away the benefits packages for Congress, Senate and yes, even Presidents. They can live like we do. Because of how they loot this nation perhaps they should do with far less. Then we can put these savings into the programs for the poor that they say they want to help so much. In essence let them lead by example.
Additionaly, Illegal aliens should be immediately deported upon entrance into a hospital or other healthcare facility. People who disregard our laws should not receive the benefits of living in this country illegaly. Substantial savings could be found here too.
[...] Media Institute: On Health Care (and Everything Else), What is the American Way? Neoavatara: Guess What? Health Care Is Expensive Betsy’s Page: How “best health practices” works in Britain Gary Graham, Big [...]
You need to do some research and get your facts straight. What the White House is proposing is not socialized medicine, but a public insurance system. It is actually not the best way to solve the health care problem. The best way is to go to a single payer system like they have in Canada or France or many other countries. Here is a page (which includes sources for all of its information) that compares US and Canadian health care, including wait times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
You’ll see that Canadian wait times are not terrible like in those anecdotal stories in the CNN article. You’ll also see that Canadians pay $3000 less per capita for health care than Americans. In fact, we have the most expensive system in the world by thousands of dollars per capita, and that’s all the people in that per capita, not just the insured ones. The facts don’t bear out the notion that we can’t afford better health care or a federal health care program. How is it that every industrialized nation in the world manages to provide better health care than the US (we are ranked 37th by the World Health Organization in health care…Canada is ranked 30th) at a far lower cost? The answer to that is that those other countries have a single payer system. That means everyone is covered, you don’t have to beg your insurance agency to cover your procedure, doctors don’t have to employ one or more people solely for the purpose of dealing with insurance companies, you don’t have to go hunting to see if you can find a doctor that accepts your insurance company or deal with the problems that arise when your doctor decides to drop your insurance company…the list goes on and one. Also, and this is a big cost-savings, you don’t have to pay approximately ~23% more for the insurance company profit margin. If I told you I could lower your insurance cost by 23% and have no change in your coverage at all, would you turn that down?
A public option would be the equivalent of medicare. Please tell me: name me one private insurance plan that is available to seniors other than Medicare. Just one. There are several that work through medicare, but none are independent. When the govt pushes all independent choices out of the marketplace, that is socialism, whether you call it that or not.
Canadian wait times for expensive procedures on average are 3-5 times longer than in the US. That is a fact. Now, is it medically relevant? That is a much different question.
Additionally, the cost advantage of medicare over private insurers has come under debate. Some argue that the cost is hidden, and the actual cost of medicare overhead is more than private insurers. I will not vouch for those facts, as I can’t verify them…but the argument is out there.
Leaving aside the bizarre aversion to socialism (I’m a pragmatist, if I must be labeled…I want what works regardless of how you label it…also, the US is not a capitalist country by law, but a republic; the economic system is an amalgamation of various systems…but I would love socialized medicine if we had it working like they have it in France, where the care is better, there are more doctors per patient than here, and so on), so what? So what if it pushes out the private insurers and we have a superior, less expensive health care system? I am not somehow emotionally tied to private insurers. I want what is best for myself and for everyone. Also, private insurance companies survive in pretty much all of the countries that have single payer, so the myth that they all disappear is just that: a myth.
As for your other points, here’s a web page where they are debunked. Yes, there may be some wait times that are different than in the US, but did you visit the wikipedia page I cited already and read what it said about wait times? Anyway, here’s another page with info. I have to go conduct a webinar now.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0
I’m back.
The thing to think about with regard to wait times is the amount of services available. Those services are available regardless of who pays. If Canada had as many doctors as the US or as many MRI machines with technicians who can run them, wait times would be lower. In the US, I can find an MRI machine on practically every street corner. Why would who pays affect how long you wait? The fact is, who pays does affect how long you wait in that, with insurance companies requiring permission to perform services, you have to wait on the company. But if the services is available, once permission is given, you can get it relatively quickly in the US. Therefore, logically, the only thing that would cause a longer wait in the US would be slow permission-giving, which would probably actually be easier to obtain here, or higher demand. Higher demand might come into play with more people insured, but is that a bad thing? Healthier people? More people able to obtain medical services?
Canadians have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. They’re doing something right. Maybe that something is broader access to health care.