posted on March 6, 2007 07:46:47 PM new
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/15/2007
Reform:
We hear it over and over: 46 million people uninsured — a number meant to convey the urgent need for universal health care. But like so many truisms, it falls apart on close examination.
The claim that so many people lack health insurance seems incontrovertible — and reprehensible.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, author of a stillborn universal care plan when she was First Lady, calls it "a national crisis and a flat-out moral failing."
Sen. Barack Obama, in announcing his own plan for universal care, called it "wrong when 46 million Americans have no health care at all."
And Sen. Ted Kennedy, another universal care advocate, reckons 4,000 people join the ranks of of the insured every day.
On closer examination, however, the problem of the uninsured doesn't look so frightening, and the need for a massive government program to cover every American begins to look like overkill.
Among the most common misconceptions:
46.6 million are uninsured.
That number, from the Census Bureau, is misleading. It makes it seem like there are that many who simply can't get coverage. Fact is, this group is constantly changing, and most of the uninsured soon have coverage again.
A Congressional Budget Office report found that
45% were uninsured for four months or less —
just 29% lacked coverage for more than a year.
As the CBO put it: "Some people are uninsured for long periods, but more are without coverage for shorter times, such as between jobs."
Looked at this way, the problem is far smaller than universal health care proponents would have you believe.
The ranks of the uninsured are climbing rapidly.
Over the past 20 years, the number of uninsured counted by the Census Bureau has steadily increased. But so has the population.
The uninsured rate has essentially been flat since 1987. And the latest figure, 15.9%, is lower than it was during the Clinton years — when it reached 16.3% in 1998.
In 2005, 1.4 million more people had insurance than the year before, although nobody touted that success.
Moreover, most of the increase in uninsured is due to immigration.
An Employee Benefits Research Institute study found that immigrants accounted for 86% of the growth in the uninsured population between 1998 and 2003. As a result, immigrants now make up more than 26% of the uninsured, compared with 19% in 1994.
Businesses are dropping coverage.
Not exactly.
According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, the main cause in the rise in the number of uninsured is the shift in the nation's work force away from big companies and industries that are most likely to provide health benefits towards smaller companies or self-employment.
It found that "virtually all net increase in employment in the past five years occurred in those industries that are much less likely to have employer coverage."
Nobody chooses to be uninsured. On the contrary, evidence shows that a large portion of the uninsured population could get coverage if they wanted it. HELLEN
The Census report notes that nearly 40% of the uninsured are young, under age 34. At least some of them may have concluded that their money was better spent on something other than health insurance.
In addition, a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis reports that about 14 million uninsured adults and children are eligible for government coverage.
Looked at more closely, then, you see that most of the uninsured are young, between jobs, moving to industries that don't offer coverage, or eligible for government programs. True, a gap in coverage can be a problem, and many still have no coverage for long spells.
But fixing these problems requires targeted reforms that make it easier for people to buy insurance on their own, and carry it with them as they change jobs — just like people do with auto insurance or homeowner's insurance.
It means getting rid of costly state mandates that push up the price of coverage. It means fixing the tax code bias against out-of-pocket spending on health care. It means creating viable high-risk insurance pools for those who can't get coverage for health reasons, and making sure people sign up for available public help.
The last thing we need is a massive new government program that promises to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.
If Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, et al. really want to help the uninsured, they should at least understand who they are, and what they really need.
posted on March 6, 2007 08:16:38 PM new
Another op-ed piece that I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree with:
From the American Thinker website:
==========
Before the country blithely acquiesces in the socialization, and inevitable degradation, of our health care industry, I think a much more compelling case than this has to be made.
So, what do I think "needs to be done" about the health care system? I confess I don't have a complete answer to this question, but here are some preliminary thoughts:
First, above all, we need to dispense with the true "fairy-tale" belief -- which is that everyone in this country should receive "the best health care someone else's money can buy."
The point of this joke is simply that, as rich as we are, we are not nearly rich enough to provide every person in this country with the same amount and quality of health care as can be afforded by the richest members of our society.
If this offends you, I'm sorry. But denying the truth won't make it go away.
As I mentioned in my initial comment on Wednesday ("Lack of Health Insurance is Not the Problem", having the best doctors, the best technology, the most advanced drugs, and the most sophisticated procedures costs a lot of money -- more money than most people can afford to spend on health care.
In this sense, health care is no different than any other "big ticket" consumer item, like housing, or automobiles, or education. Not everyone can afford the best. Many people, therefore, are going to have to accept less.
Moreover, just as we cannot afford, as a society, to provide every family with a 3,000 square foot home full of top-of-the-line appliances, or a Rolls Royce and Hummer in the garage, or a $500,000 education (K through college) at the toniest private schools, we cannot afford to provide every person with the highest quality medical care. We just can't -- even if we were to use the government to loot all of the wealth in the country and force doctors to provide services for free.
Yes, as we get richer, and as we continue to make advances in health care, the average level of medical care available to all Americans will continue to go up, just as it has for decades and decades. But, significantly, this only will happen if we operate under a free market system, based on the profit motive.
Once we decide to make health care a "right" and declare that all persons are "entitled" to medical care -- as we already are doing through massive top-down programs like Medicare; through laws that require hospitals to care for all persons, regardless of ability to pay; and through government mandates that require insurance companies to provide various types of coverage, regardless of the realities of the marketplace -- then we will stifle the very engine of progress, and create the same stagnant, unresponsive health care systems that exist in Britain and Canada.
Do such socialized health care systems work "better" for the poorest members of those societies than a free market system would? I am sure they do. (Just as declaring a constitutional right to public housing would work "better" for the homeless than our current, overwhelmingly private system does.) But the price of such systems -- besides a devastating erosion of personal and economic liberty in one of the most important areas of life -- is that the amount and quality of medical care available to the vast majority of citizens is made demonstrably worse.
On what political, economic, or moral grounds should the vast majority of Americans be required -- on pain of government coercion -- to sacrifice their own health care choices in order to remedy a "problem" (lack of health insurance) that exists for no more than 10-20 percent of the population (including millions of illegal aliens who do not belong here)?
I can't think of any that I find remotely persuasive. Mr. Poole suggests that such "utilitarian" thinking is misplaced in this debate. I strongly disagree.
It is no coincidence that people the world over want to come to the United States, with still the freest health care system of any advanced country, for medical care.
Nevertheless, more and more Americans are jumping on the socialized medicine bandwagon. Clearly, many people believe that "government" can provide for their health care needs better than they can.
As discussed above, this is a deeply mistaken point of view. Unfortunately, it is a view that large numbers of people hold, not just the "trojan horse liberals" (as my brother calls them) who want to sneak socialism into the country through seemingly "compassionate" liberal social policies.
The country will rue the day when we succumb to the siren song of "universal coverage."
Besides re-invigorating the free market aspects of the health care industry, e.g., through insurance de-regulation and health savings accounts, what else do I think needs to be done?
Briefly, we absolutely must secure our borders and reduce the number of illegal immigrants streaming into the country. Illegal immigrants represent a severe drain on our health care system (indeed, on all aspects of our society) to the tune of billions of dollars annually.
Our country, however rich, does not have limitless resources. Every dollar spent caring for illegal immigrants, e.g., in hospital emergency rooms and OB wards, is one less dollar that can be spent on Americans.
We also need tort reform.
Both the corporations that research and develop new health care products and individual health care providers in this country are subjected to lawsuits that impose millions, sometimes billions, of dollars of costs on them, and, indirectly, on American consumers. These costs drive companies and doctors out of business, reduce innovation, lead to inefficient "defensive" medicine practices, raise insurance costs, and ultimately reduce the amount and quality of medical care available to Americans.
Do I think all such lawsuits are baseless? Of course not. But too often in products liability and medical malpractice cases, the alleged "wrongdoing" is highly debatable (a "battle of experts" as we say in the legal profession), and juries tend to award damages out of sympathy for the "victim" rather than an understanding of the medical science or standard of care involved.
Many tort reform proposals have been made over the years, usually to impose some sort of cap on damages.
Personally, I think raising the burden of proof in these cases, from a preponderance standard to a clear and convincing standard, is the single most important reform we should make.
I believe that debatable cases should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Only where the negligence is clear should damages be awarded. And in those cases, very large damages may sometimes be appropriate.
In closing, do I think that the policies I support -- health care de-regulation, reducing illegal immigration, and tort reform -- will eliminate all problems with the health care system, or allow all Americans to receive the medical care they want? Of course not. No such policies, including "[ universal coverage" or any other scheme of socialized medicine, can achieve these utopian goals.
On the contrary, the existing examples of state-run health care systems across the world demonstrate that they lead to worse medical care for more people, by far, than the American system.
posted on March 6, 2007 08:17:29 PM new
Linda, Try to defrost that cold heart of yours for a minute. The real estate agent made $60,000 a year and in order to get individual insurance would have had to pay $27,000 a year. Could you afford to pay half your salary to health insurance? You want people to sell their houses to get health care. What if there are kids? Should the whole family be homeless so that they can fork over thousands for health care? Even Medicaid does not require you to sell your house to qualify. These are not ne'er do well people. They are employed and earn good livings, but are not rich enough to afford health insurance. That is what's wrong with the system.
posted on March 6, 2007 08:30:27 PM new
I am NOT cold hearted. But I'm also NOT a bleeding heart liberal who wants the gov. [READ - TAXPAYERS] to pay for everything for everyone.
And imo, the liberals are so QUICK to believe that all who share these types of problems didn't have other CHOICES.
When one is making a decent living....middle class....there is NO reason they shouldn't be able to FIND a way to pay for their own health care insurance.
There are thousands and thousands of plans....that have high deductibles...that MAKE it affordable to ALL middle class working people.
You're talking about, I believe, someone who waited until they were diagnosed with a serious illness....THEN started worrying about and facing the REALITY of what going without med. ins. can mean. Yes, those plans are pretty much unaffordable for the middle class person. I'd agree with that.
But I don't WANT to pay for illegals medical care. I don't WANT to pay for the medical care of someone who would rather spend their 'middle income' in a more FUN way....other than purchasing protection for themselves....because they THINK all will be willing to pay their own premiums and THEIRS too.
posted on March 6, 2007 08:55:07 PM new
In the OP, the real estate agent was reported to have had cancer in the past. I can only assume she had health insurance at the time of diagnosis, since there was no mention that she had to sell her house to pay for her treatment. Now with her present job, as an independent contractor, she was not eligible for group insurance. To get individual insurance, she would have had to spend half her yearly income--something not too many people could manage. Could you? Individual health insurance policies are not easy to get and are notoriously expensive, no matter how big the deductible. And that's for 1 person. If you need to insure children as well, good luck to you! I am not necessarily advocating national health care, just a more reasonable insurance cost. Most people are more than willing to pay for their health insurance, but they have to feed and house their families as well.
posted on March 6, 2007 09:26:15 PM new
I do not believe we can focus on the problem of ONE person.....who CHOSE to become an independent contractor. I'm sure she was aware there were no insurance benefits. She STILL chose that job.
Secondly I do not see you addressing how you can morally say that 250,000,000 people should be FORCED to accept sub-standard care so that 40,000,000 will have coverage that they don't pay for.
I long ago posted a link that showed how many YOUNG adults don't WANT to pay for med. insu. At their age...they'd rather spend money on other things. They are still young and stupid enough to believe they won't be in a situation where they'd NEED med. ins.
Next I don't think we have ANY way of evaulating each person's circumstances.
Like when you asked me about should she sell her home?
You don't think she should....but I do.
Why? Because many people overextend themselves buying MORE home than they can really afford. It's important to some that they have a new car each year...or take a 'deserved' exotic vacation.
Thus...they wouldn't have money to put towards something as important as med. ins.
That's THEIR CHOICE.
But what I've seen come about is that first the liberals wanted free health care to the poor. They got it.
Are the liberals satisfied now? Nope....now they want free medical care/ins. for those in the middle income bracket.
And what I'm saying is that IF anyone making $60,000 a year can't afford $350.00 a month to protect THEMSELVES......then why should I have to 'make it all better'?
I don't think I should have to. I did without something nice so I COULD pay my med. ins. Think I enjoy spending it in that way? Nope...I'd rather spend it on a new car payment each month....or a wonderful vacation too.
But I made different choices. Just like I choose to not get pregnant BEFORE I was married. So I didn't have to go to the NANNY gov. asking to be taken care of.
Some people just don't think/plan ahead. And no, I'm NOT willing to pay for them.
IF they were poor ENOUGH - our gov. would care for them.
posted on March 6, 2007 11:45:01 PM new
But linduh doesn't mind her government sending 10 BILLION dollars to Iraq just so it could disappear....that's very odd....
posted on March 7, 2007 05:19:13 AM new
It is always popular to bring back the issue unniversal healthcare while running for office,thats what people want to hear,just like taking profit away from the oil companies and blaming every woe on corporate America greed while pocketing 6 figures making baloney speeches!
posted on March 7, 2007 05:58:39 AM new
We can't continue to ignore those victims!
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
posted on March 7, 2007 07:19:58 AM new
Linda, You are confusing the 2 people used to illustrate health insurance problems. The real estate agent made $60,000 a year and she needed to pay $27,000 a year for individual health insurance. The woman who recently died of cancer had to pay $350.00 a month. Who are you to say what their financial circumstances are? $350.00 a month is a large chunk of monthly income for most people. You do not know if they even own a home to sell. You are so judgmental in how people should live their lives. Not everyone is perfect, like you. You way oversimplify your solution to the problem. Sell you house to pay for health care? If even a small fraction of people did this, we would be overrun with more homeless. You know, people can plan carefully, not be wastrels and still get bogged down in the health care mess. It does not mean they made wrong choices or are out spending their health insurance money at the casinos.
posted on March 7, 2007 07:36:22 AM new
Who am I????
LOL.....I'm the taxpayer that's being asked to PAY THEIR SHARE. That's who.
I am also a person who has paid my own way all my life....and I'm not happy about the possibility of being FORCED to accept sub-standard, gov health care because SOME don't WANT to pay their own way.
That's who!!!
I've already said that it's difficult to discusson ONE person's health care issues....because we don't know all their circumstances. Like she could have a home valued at over a million dollars now....especially if she lives in CA. Does she need a million dollar home WHILE I PAY HER WAY? Nope. She can sell her home, find a less expensive place to live....SHARE a place...etc. But NO, I'm not willing to pay her way.
Imo, the ONLY thing that counts is that THEY be able to TAKE CARE OF themselves by protecting THEMSELVES with med. ins.
Maybe the FORCED med. ins like they're doing in MASS....might be better. I'd take THAT before I'd take socialized medicine that's BREAKING the bank in both Canada AND the UK.
How do you know they're not one of the thousands LIKE HELEN who can afford it...doesn't WANT to pay for it...wants me to pay HER way....and she can enjoy taking painting classes....talk on the chat boards all day rather than getting a job that offers med. ins?
See...you don't. It works BOTH WAYS.
Liberals always want to use a 'victim' who finds themselves in a tough place BECAUSE of their CHOICES.....then expects everyone else to pay for their stupid choices.
And for those who don't agree, who HAVE BEEN responsible for themselves...and EXPECT others to do the same....then the bleeding hearts call them cold hearted.
Nope...nothing to do with anything except EXPECTING adults to take care of themselves.
posted on March 7, 2007 07:52:43 AM new
As far as hellens FALSE FACT LIST goes....
it's been explained over and over and over again to her WHY the numbers make the US rates look worse than others.
BUT she continues to post her DISTORTIONS over and over again....hope to convince some that the US needs socialized medicine so that these areas can be improved.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Again....as can be found on SEVERAL sites.....choose your own poison.
=========
While politicians love to cite these international comparisons, they are rife with problems that end up making the U.S. look worse, a fact pointed out by researchers for years.
===
AND AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT TO HELEN EACH TIME SHE POSTS THESE DISTORTIONS
===
Take infant mortality. The international statistics that Hillary, Ted and others love to cite come from the World Health Organization (WHO), which defines a life birth as any baby showing any signs of life.
While the U.S. carefully follows this definition, many other countries do not. As the WHO itself points out, "underreporting and misclassification are common, especially for deaths occurring early on in life."
For example, the U.S. tries to save extremely premature babies, many of which die and then get counted as an infant mortality.
Other countries simply count these as stillbirths.
In Switzerland, a baby must be at least 12 inches long to be counted as living, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In Japan, "social and cultural customs favor the recording of infant deaths as stillbirths because the latter are not recorded in the Koseki, the Japanese family registration system," noted a report from the congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
In addition, other countries have suspiciously low infant mortality rates in the first 24 hours after birth.
Eberstadt found that in the U.S., Canada and Australia, more than 33% of infant deaths occurred in the first day of life.
In France, just 16% died in the first day, in
Luxembourg just 10%, and
in Hong Kong only 4% of infant deaths occurred in the first day of life.
Eberstadt concludes that these countries are artificially pushing down their infant mortality rates by counting many first-day deaths as stillbirths.
All this led researchers in the American Journal of Public Health to conclude: "The usefulness of crude infant mortality rates in international comparisons is questionable because of differences in the registration of births and deaths."
The claim that the U.S. fares far worse than other countries on life expectancy suffers a similar problem because it fails to take into account the multitude of factors other than health care that affect life expectancy.
posted on March 7, 2007 07:54:11 AM new
This site, The Commonwealth Fund, has some charts on health stats that seem to differ somewhat from the quotes made on the opinion piece from 'Investor's Business Daily' where the author wrote 'Hellen' in the midst of his piece for some reason.
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money
Oh yes, of course, helen AND kiara would like people to remain ignorant of WHY our infant mortality rates APPEAR - BUT AREN'T - higher than other Nations.
Could also be that THEY just can't GRASP the reason why. tsk tsk tsk
And they're BOTH Internationalists.....not 'America first' sort of liberals.
So....they enjoy continuing to support global information to USE agains the US....to make the US appear to be SO BAD.
==================
Simplified so MAYBE kiara and helen can GRASP the difference.
IF we were counting our eggs.....and kiara/helen ONLY counted their white eggs....but I counted ALL my eggs, both white AND brown, then of course my count is going to be HIGHER than kiaras.
Wasn't this taught to liberals in BASIC MATH classes.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 7, 2007 08:10 AM ]
posted on March 7, 2007 08:09:59 AM new MYTH Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US
Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.
Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)
Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.
Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%
Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
posted on March 7, 2007 08:19:34 AM new
Gotta love that while they try and sell us a bill of goods - sub standard, socialized medicine....spoiled goods in my opinion.....
..if their system in canada is working so well ...then try and get one of these socialist supporters here to tell you why canada is now changing how THEY do things...and beginning to turn to the US way of allowing citizens to purchase their OWN private insurance.
WHY??? because their system isn't working.
Canadians are UPSET that they CAN'T purchase better health care on their own. IF they do...they're BREAKING canadian LAWS.
And Mass JUST passed their ins. required bill late last year. We have NO idea how that's going to work out...and we won't for 5-10 years at least.
In socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and employs doctors and nurses. That whould not be the case with universal health care.
MYTH Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)
Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
posted on March 7, 2007 08:26:26 AM new
Linda_K, while you're cackling and counting your eggs may I ask why you're ragging on me about the infant mortality rates when I never mentioned them here? You must have my link mixed up with something else in your mind? If you stopped screaming and took a look at the extensive surveys and data and charts you may become more informed.
The Commonwealth Fund
"The Fund tracks trends in health coverage, access and quality, and general policy/practice issues in the U.S. and internationally."
"The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults."
"The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries."
posted on March 7, 2007 08:27:32 AM new
"""And they're BOTH Internationalists.....not 'America first' sort of liberals."""
No, it sounds like they want to improve the health care situation in America for all AMERICANS!
YOU sound like you'd rather blow 10 BILLION into dust in Iraq for IRAQIs but screw Americans because they should be punished for making incorrect decisions.
BY THE WAY
all you "just sell your house" advocates....
WHERE do you get the idea that would help....the price of an average home could be quickly eaten up by hospital bills. And then where is the patient ? They still have to live (or don't you agree with THAT ?)
So you truly believe that America is so great and you're so pro-America(eye-roll) that you believe driving sick people into poverty is a good thing ???
If they are forced onto welfare is that a good thing ???
Good health care for a countrie's citzens is vital for a strong, thriving country....
posted on March 7, 2007 08:44:01 AM new
Common arguments waged from opponents of universal health care systems are:
Health care is not a right.[40][41]
Individuals no more have a right to be protected from natural phenomena as the government has the power to levitate individuals in defiance of gravity, which itself is an act of nature like old age and disease.[42]
Providing health care is not the responsibility of government.[43]
Increased waiting times, which can result in unnecessary deaths.[40][44]
Poorer quality of care.[40][33]
Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.[40]
Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy.[33][40]
Administrative duties, by doctors, are the result of medical centralization and over-regulation, and are not natural to the profession. In fact, before heavy regulation of the health care and insurance industries, doctor visits to the elderly, and free care, or low cost care to impoverished patients was common; governments regulated this form of charity out of existence.[45]
Universal health care plans will add more inefficiency to the medical system because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which will lead to less doctor patient visits.[46]
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity lead to greater cost control and effectiveness.[33]
Uninsured citizens can sometimes still receive emergency care from alternative sources such as nonprofits and government-run hospitals.[33]
Government-mandated procedures reduce doctor flexibility.[33]
Healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. [33]
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay dissuades many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.[33]
Causes loss of insurance industry jobs and other business closures in the private sector.[33]
[b]Eliminates a right to privacy between doctors and patients as governments demand power to oversee health of citizens[b].[47]
Empirical evidence on single payer insurance programs demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates.[48]
Governments, such as Canada, have outlawed medical care if the service is paid for by private individual funds. This results as governments attempt to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power.[49]
posted on March 7, 2007 08:55:36 AM new
No one is asking you to pay for anything, you twit. As I said in a previous post, I'm not talking about socialized medicine. Affordable health insurance for all is what is needed. Keep your money. As far as concern for an individual case--do you think that this real estate agent is the only one in this predicament? You ignore everything but what you want to believe. People can do everything right---budget their money, live a healthy life style, not splurge on "toys", but if they are unfortunate enough to be hit with a catastrophic illness, none of that matters. Try looking up the word EMPATHY. If you got some, you might understand the problem.
posted on March 7, 2007 08:58:16 AM new
""" Linda_K
posted on March 6, 2007 07:02:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roadsmith asks:- "Why don't you ASK us how we felt about Clinton's transgressions?"
You're joking, right? Questions put to the liberals/dems here GO UNANSWERED. All I have to do is ask a serious question and the leftie DISAPPEARS. lol"""""
Sort of like the neocons in this thread who can't answer a simple pertinent question ??????
posted on March 7, 2007 09:16:42 AM new
Back to immigants who are uninsured-
I know there are many immigrants ,unless they are insured by their employers,they dont have insurance.
first they cannot afford it,or if they can,they would rather take a chance and save that money.
In their own neighborhood,doctor visits and pharmacies are cheaper,a doctor visit in Houston Chinatown is 30 dollars .
Dont forget they come from societies where it is not not unusual to have no insurance,their saving rates is much higher than ours and it is their choice not to take out insurance.
When they read our insurance policy where there is a deductible,co payment and restrictions etc,they just throw the policy away,do you blame them??
posted on March 7, 2007 09:22:57 AM new
liar_k,
I will give you something to make you more paranoid in that sick twisted brain for yours.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE COMING AFTER SOME OF YOUR GOD (THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR).
Believe it LIAR_K your going to be made to give to a less fortunate fellow Americans.
Its only fair because your commander and failure BUSHY is borrowing money for HIS IRAQ WAR. Money added to our National Debt that our children and grand children will be paying for.
So what's a few hundred bucks more in taxes from you to help your fellow Americans.
THEY ARE COMING AFTER YOUR MONEY LIAR_K AND YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO GET SOME!!!
[ edited by bigpeepa on Mar 7, 2007 09:24 AM ]
posted on March 7, 2007 09:31:58 AM new
LOL...as with MOST liberals when they can't argue their point...they start calling names. tsk tsk tsk
Try to act like an adult, coincoach.
You say YOU weren't talking about xxx....LOL...surprise surprise this isn't ALL ABOUT YOU.
It's about all the progressive liberals/socialists that DO WANT this type of national health care.
LOL Got that? It's not all about YOU.
As far as 'empathy' goes.....I admit to being REAL resentful at paying for clowns who can't think beyond today...nor plan for tomorrow....and then expect ME to pay to make it all better for them.
Nope....I act like an adult...I expect others to be capable of doing the same.
I don't support this continuing slide into socialism that we are experiencing - the liberals leading the way down into the PIT.
It BREEDS DEPENDENCE.....makes adults run to the gov. to make it all better.
Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for THEIR OWN DECISIONS?
Is that something that the lefties are totally LACKING now-a-days? Sure appears that way to me. Because they rarely have expectations that adults should ACT like adults....and should be self-sufficient.
Nope.... they're more like children. "mommy [gov] give me this, mommy give me that - cause I DESERVE it"
, having the best doctors, the best technology, the most advanced drugs, and the most sophisticated procedures costs a lot of money -- more money than most people can afford to spend on health care.
