Health care increasingly out of reach for millions of Americans

[james&olya 1,121]

But how do you explain the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the UK? Can't blame Obama or insurance companies.

Health care costs are going up everywhere, for everybody. But you are getting far more now than before. Twenty years ago my son's leukemia was a type with a near 100% mortality. Now over 50% are being cured. The same is true across a very wide range of medical problems. Blaming Obama, medicare, malpractice lawsuits, whatever, ignores the obvious. Only a rational single-payer health system that studies and implements strategies to improve outcomes while reducing costs can help. Sarah Palin got a lot of mileage over her hysterical 'death panel' nonsense. The truth is that private insurance does this all the time but its methods of doing so are not accountable to the public. While not actually in 'Obamacare', somebody needs to bring some rational decision making into the overall health care equation. Spending unlimited sums on end-of-life care that has little to no benefit while cutting corners on proven, cost-effective measures such as immunizations is crazy! We need a single payer system that will have a mandate to get the best return for us all for the dollars society decides to spend.

[james&olya 1,121]

The health insurance industry profit margin is only about 3-4%.

That 'profit' margin is AFTER they pay all their wages and salaries. All those paper-shufflers that try their best to get away with denying your claims get paid before the profit is set aside! So do the millions paid to the CEO's and top management. Even the golden parachutes are funded out of your premiums before they set aside any 'profits'! Profit is what is paid to the stockholders. And 3-4% of all health care is a HUGE amount of money!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Health care costs are going up everywhere, for everybody. But you are getting far more now than before. Twenty years ago my son's leukemia was a type with a near 100% mortality. Now over 50% are being cured. The same is true across a very wide range of medical problems. Blaming Obama, medicare, malpractice lawsuits, whatever, ignores the obvious. Only a rational single-payer health system that studies and implements strategies to improve outcomes while reducing costs can help. Sarah Palin got a lot of mileage over her hysterical 'death panel' nonsense. The truth is that private insurance does this all the time but its methods of doing so are not accountable to the public. While not actually in 'Obamacare', somebody needs to bring some rational decision making into the overall health care equation. Spending unlimited sums on end-of-life care that has little to no benefit while cutting corners on proven, cost-effective measures such as immunizations is crazy! We need a single payer system that will have a mandate to get the best return for us all for the dollars society decides to spend.

Well said.

[Neonred 3,445]

The VA has some of the best actual outcomes data in health care. Their return on the dollars spent is much better than private insurance.

Medicare consistently scores substantially higher in its satisfaction scores from its beneficiaries than private insurance.

Wait a minute. Have you ever used the VA medical care or worked there? I have (worked there). Holy $hit. I don't want any part of that for my primary care!

[mawilson 2,133]

Medicare consistently scores substantially higher in its satisfaction scores from its beneficiaries than private insurance.

Why wouldn't it score higher? It costs its beneficiaries nothing - the taxpayer foots the bill. Only one problem - it's bankrupting this country, otherwise it's near damn perfect!

[mawilson 2,133]

That 'profit' margin is AFTER they pay all their wages and salaries.

Really, you mean they actually *pay* their employees? *shudder*

All those paper-shufflers that try their best to get away with denying your claims get paid before the profit is set aside!

So you want them to just approve or deny claims based on merit and see what happens? If they have $10 billion left over, great - that's your profit. If they have a $10 billion loss - oops, too bad? How long do you think a business can operate like that?

Profit is what is paid to the stockholders.

You do know you can open a brokerage account and become a stockholder in about 5 minutes? It's not some exclusive club, you know - their shares are publicly traded!

[james&olya 1,121]

Wait a minute. Have you ever used the VA medical care or worked there? I have (worked there). Holy $hit. I don't want any part of that for my primary care!

Yes. I have worked 'there'. It was a newer facility and was actually very nice for staff and patients. I know the horror stories. The VA is so severely underfunded what else could anyone expect. Trying to buy a $1000 product that you bargained down to $500 but then only came up with $250 in payment. Then criticizing them and saying they have mismanaged the money given them because they couldn't buy more!

Let's suppose you were told to go out and buy a new cadillac. Then you were given enough to buy a used chevy. You go out and shrewdly negotiate and wind up with a new chevy. Rather than getting due credit, you are roundly criticized by all because you didn't come back with that new cadillac. That is a good analogy for the VA. Except that it might not be extreme enough!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Free market will take care of it. Either people will move to states with better healthcare, or better healthcare will move to where people demand it.

And we have a winner!

[james&olya 1,121]

You do know you can open a brokerage account and become a stockholder in about 5 minutes? It's not some exclusive club, you know - their shares are publicly traded!

The question really comes down to whether health care should remain a private, profit driven enterprise without public oversight.

Insurance exists to spread risk. What better way to spread risk in a society than to have all members of society in the same risk pool and all benefitting equitably. If you accept that premise than the questions become how is the fairest way to fund the system and how best do you ensure quality while controlling costs. Single payer, publicly administered (accountable to the public through oversight by publicly elected representatives) is the conclusion of many who have studied this issue extensively. The reason that is not currently 'on the table' speaks to the incredibly corrupting influence of huge campaign contributions as well as a revolving door between the industry and government!

[Leatherneck 693]

The VA has some of the best actual outcomes data in health care. Their return on the dollars spent is much better than private insurance.

Medicare consistently scores substantially higher in its satisfaction scores from its beneficiaries than private insurance.

There is more to a health care system than "best actual outcomes." Long before you get to any "best actual outcomes" you have to run the VA gauntlet for months dealing with pin-headed case workers, a blizzard of forms, form re-submission and heaven help you if you get a rejection then decide to fight on. That is an additional mountain of paperwork. All of this to open a claim and before the veteran gets one aspirin.

Think I'm full of sh!t -- read this short article from this VA blog.

[Leatherneck 693]

Health care costs are going up everywhere, for everybody. But you are getting far more now than before. Twenty years ago my son's leukemia was a type with a near 100% mortality. Now over 50% are being cured. The same is true across a very wide range of medical problems. Blaming Obama, medicare, malpractice lawsuits, whatever, ignores the obvious. Only a rational single-payer health system that studies and implements strategies to improve outcomes while reducing costs can help. Sarah Palin got a lot of mileage over her hysterical 'death panel' nonsense. The truth is that private insurance does this all the time but its methods of doing so are not accountable to the public. While not actually in 'Obamacare', somebody needs to bring some rational decision making into the overall health care equation. Spending unlimited sums on end-of-life care that has little to no benefit while cutting corners on proven, cost-effective measures such as immunizations is crazy! We need a single payer system that will have a mandate to get the best return for us all for the dollars society decides to spend.

Such a utopian system is to be conceived, implemented and managed by politicians and bureaucrats, folks that by nature are less than rational with regards to the size and cope of govt meddling?

As an advocate (you) of "single payer" where private insurance companies would be shut out, the desire and ability of people to pay for their own care out of their own pockets would be outlawed, replaced by govt bureaucracy that provides a uniform ("one size fits all"), tightly regulated and limited number of treatment options for everyone. You must surely be aware of this, I refuse to believe you are so naive as to think otherwise.

[james&olya 1,121]

As an advocate (you) of "single payer" where private insurance companies would be shut out, the desire and ability of people to pay for their own care out of their own pockets would be outlawed, replaced by govt bureaucracy that provides a uniform ("one size fits all"), tightly regulated and limited number of treatment options for everyone. You must surely be aware of this, I refuse to believe you are so naive as to think otherwise.

Those ideas are yours, not mine. Who proposes to outlaw private insurance? It exists even now for medicare recipients and would likely be a useful adjunct for those who wanted coverage for services beyond the basics that a 'medicare-for-all' program would provide. Likewise, why would anyone outlaw those who wanted to pay cash out of pocket? You are delusional! Step back, try to clear your mind of irrational prejudices, and take a fresh look at this issue with a bit more of an open mind!

[Leatherneck 693]

Those ideas are yours, not mine. Who proposes to outlaw private insurance? It exists even now for medicare recipients and would likely be a useful adjunct for those who wanted coverage for services beyond the basics that a 'medicare-for-all' program would provide. Likewise, why would anyone outlaw those who wanted to pay cash out of pocket? You are delusional! Step back, try to clear your mind of irrational prejudices, and take a fresh look at this issue with a bit more of an open mind!

Your disconnect from reality is quite astonishing. Your dyed in the wool progressive view of things does not negate how things actually function in the real world. What you propose is not new and there is nothing fresh to be experienced, the results are predictable. Your fantasy about a "rational single payer" system is about as irrational as your delusion about such.

[Leatherneck 693]

The question really comes down to whether health care should remain a private, profit driven enterprise without public oversight.

Health care is a commodity, I know you hate the idea of such. The Supreme Court will answer that question soon.

Insurance exists to spread risk. What better way to spread risk in a society than to have all members of society in the same risk pool and all benefitting equitably. If you accept that premise than the questions become how is the fairest way to fund the system and how best do you ensure quality while controlling costs.

Majority of Americans don't accept this premise, hence the push back against the health care law. Seriously, "ensure quality while controlling costs" where govt is involved? Name one, just one govt agency that does such?

Single payer, publicly administered (accountable to the public through oversight by publicly elected representatives) is the conclusion of many who have studied this issue extensively. The reason that is not currently 'on the table' speaks to the incredibly corrupting influence of huge campaign contributions as well as a revolving door between the industry and government!

Like:

Fannie Mae;

Freddie Mac;

TSA;

Postal Service;

ATF;

Dept of Ed.;

Dept. of Energy, the list is endless.

All functions of govt "accountable to the public through oversight by publicly elected representatives" working just fine. While many consider the track record of years of past and present performance of govt -- You, however, continue to wet yourself with progressive fantasies of govt being the solution.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Leatherneck

[mawilson 2,133]

Insurance exists to spread risk. What better way to spread risk in a society than to have all members of society in the same risk pool and all benefitting equitably. If you accept that premise

That's a tough one. On one hand, I hate the idea of being in the same risk pool with a 300 pound man who eats Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would like to see everyone pay their own way.

At the same time, I recognize that some people are born with disabilities and pre-existing conditions and are at a disadvantage when it comes to healthcare.

I think the right solution is a compromise - an insurance system which only covers costs of expensive treatments of catastrophic illnesses. Everything else that is not life threatening should be paid for by individuals out of pocket. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it - tough luck.