Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Actually, we already have a huge government run insurance program: Medicare, which people seem to like, and government employees, like the Senators and Congress people, who are on a government insurance program. It's ironic that the very Senators and Congressmen who decry government insurance, are beneficiaries of it. It would be funny, if it were not so blatantly idiotic for them to rail against it.

I have an idea on this whole govenment option thing. How about if we give people the choice: Would you like to sign up for Medicare now, and not wait till 65, or would you like to keep your current insurance? Let's see how many want to switch.

 

Olbermann didn't do the interview - Howard Dean did it.

 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Medicare is floundering. As I said in an earlier post we need to fix medicare as well. Although I could really see a program where there is a medicare-type system in place which provides minimal, but essential, coverage and companies/individuals can add to it for a price, much like you can do with medicare (plan A, plan B, etc.).

My understanding of the insurance coverage congress has; it is far better than any coverage provided to other government workers. So the idea of railing against a government insurance plan is not really an attack on their plan -- but rather an attack at the inefficiencies we see in medicare already, expanded to cover everyone.

 

T2 again seems to have it right. Medicare is floundering, and a lot of people on it aren't too happy with it as it is, either. Of course, I imagine that could be said about any system, especially one focused on the older folks, but those who can afford to not be on medicare aren't, which says they prefer private plans to it.

 

Really? Prove it.

 

I was watching Fox and Friends this morning at a car delearship while my car was getting an oil change, and I saw a retired army sergeant on who said that he was opposed to any type of government run heathcare, as that was socialism, and then went on to extoll the care he receives at the VA. Do these people even listen to what they say sometimes?

This whole health care mess is bad though. My prediction: What eventually passes will be so watered-down from the original intent that it won't cover everyone and will be just popular enough that the Republicans won't want to take credit for trying to stop it, and just unpopular enough that the Democrats won't want to take credit for its passage.

This is shaping up as a "Throw the Bums Out" election in 2010 - on both sides of the ailse. They could sell it like a UFC match: The Obstructionists verses the Incompetence!

 

No, Chandos... this time YOU prove it. Medicare and medicaid have huge financial problems and provide a bureaucratic nightmare for senior citizens. The reports can be found daily in any number of newspapers. By 2020, Plan A will be insolvent and medicare itself will only be able to pay 80% of projected claims. A key issue with medicare is the fact that provider reimbursement levels have not tracked costs and many providers are refusing medicare patients -- this make finding help harder and lowers the quality of help received. This problem also extends to perscription medicines.

 

Nevertheless, THEIR insurance is still provided by the government - government run insurance. Oh, rail against the supposed "ineffienciences" of Medicare? Like the 5 percent adminstrative costs, compared to the 25 percent adminstrative costs in private companies? And the extra 30 billion dollars in profits? Wow. That's real "inefficient" there.

People are unhappy? Really, you don't say. A completely voluntary program that has been around, for how long? And has how many voluntary customers? In business one of the biggest factors you judge your success by is how large your customer base is and how long they stick around - customers vote with their feet. What exactly are you saying here, T2?

 

I'm not really sure where your argument is going Chandos or even what your statements are trying to prove or rebut. Perhaps my statement were not clear, I don't know. If you restate your arguments it might help.

 

T2 - My point is that Medicare has been around since 1965, (44 years) and it has about 43 million voluntary customers; it's adminstrative costs are typically lower than private companies and 43 million people choose Medicare over private insurance. Plus Medicare is non-profit. So what's the problem with Medicare, T2?

 

Chandos, it may be voluntary but there's no other game out there. All other insurance programs cost far, far more -- and even poor coverage is better than none at all. Is that really voluntary or does medicare have a captive audience? The low administrative costs result in poor customer service. I'm not advocating a 25% administrative cost, but there needs to be some improvement. People get lost in the cracks, and when it happens with medicare those people die.

Medicare is funded by the public, but at an insufficient amount -- Plan A will be insolvent in approximately ten years. This means NO hospital coverage for elderly. By that same time, claims will exceed funding by 25%. I see both of these as severe problems. These are just the two most pressing financial issues confronting medicare, there are many more -- including the cost of perscription medicines escalating faster than coverage allows and many elderly are using substantial portions of their savings on medicine.

One of my first comments about health care reform is that we need to shore up medicare and medicaid. Without solidifying these programs we doom any health care reform to fail.

 

No one doubts Medicare is underfunded, but depite this, it remains extremely popular among the elderly, and is rated extremely favorably by a majority of people who use it. Recent polls shows that nearly 60% of all people who use Medicare rate their level of care either a 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale. This compares with just 40% of people with private insurance who rate their care as a 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale.

It suggests Medicare doesn't necessarily need to be "fixed" just "funded".

details here

 

Bingo! Those who would rail against it, would certainly underfund it. They can always find an excuse to cut its funding. It is, as often with those in Congress, a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Well, yes. That is the whole point. If everyone could afford private insurance, why would we need a government option?

 

No, Chandos, that's not the point. The point is that cheaper isn't necessarily better, especially not when major mandated changes to private plans are being tossed around. IFF Medicare were extended to everyone (and properly funded) and that was the ONLY effect of the bill, my only worry would be about the efficiency of Medicare, which seems to be pretty good. Unfortunately, that's not what's being talked about.

 

Yes, it is. The reason we are even having this debate is because of the COST of health care. There are some 80 million people in this country who can't afford private health care - Some 43 million on Medicare (as T2 points out) and another 40 or so million who don't have any insurance. That is what's at the center of the debate. You add all the bankruptcies because of the medical bills, and you have a real problem. It's the cost of health care that's driving the debate.

 

I would really like to know one aspect in American healthcare that is better than the Finnish, just one. I know for certain one that's better with our universal healthcare and that's it being available for all. I'm yet to be convinced that the American healthcare would in any way be of better quality. What can one get in America that's not available in here? Of course I'm certain that no American knows the Finnish system very well, but I'd gladly take even wild guesses.

 

Two for you: Mayo clinic and St Judes Children's Hospital.

 

...which are both non-profit institutions that readily accept patients using medicaid and medicare.

 

I completely agree - and it's probably the most obvious point one can make. If cost isn't at the center of this debate, what is? If private health insurance were more affordable more people would be insured, and those already insured wouldn't see such a large chunk of their income going to pay for it. Even REPUBLICANS agree that the health insurance system needs reform because it is economically unsustainable in its current form.

 

St Judes offers all services free of charge. None of their patients usually qualify for medicare.