takes UAW hourly wages from $28 to $73, along with their other benefits, pension, matching funds and the like. The national insurance coverage was what I was referring when talking how the new administration may or may not impact this situation. The nonunion figures I gave are for the US Toyota workers. I don't think they can take advantage of the national insurance coverage the global Toyota workers have, but I could be mistaken. The more we talk about this, the more interesting it becomes. I wish I knew where to go to get reliable information on this.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.
With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage. Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance. The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc. In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.
I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.
I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.
Health care
Nope, he didn't say anything as extreme as HRC about health care, but if he's going to enact any type of government funded health care, how is he going to pay for it? Not to mention all the other changes he has in mind. You think the economy is bad now, you haven't seen anything yet. I believe in helping out when people need the help, but there are already too many entitlement programs that people have been on for generations and now there should be another? So that now I not only have to pay for my own (which I do, by the way) but I have to pay for others as well? Does that really seem fair to you? And no, I don't like the war, but realistically, what else can we do at this point? We can't pull out because then things would be worse than they were. I think too many people forget what happened to our country in 2001 (and the many episodes before that) - you don't hear anyone from WWII forgetting about Pearl Harbor. McCain is going to change a lot - don't be fooled into thinking he's just continuing Bush's presidency - it's not even close. Regardless of who wins, I certainly don't envy them the huge responsibilities they're going to face. I do hope that whoever wins doesn't screw it up! Not sure this country can take much more of that.
Clinton health care
President Clinton and the First Lady tried to get a universal health care plan passed but the republicans fought them all the way and it was dead in the water. That was the first thing they focused on when starting his presidency. Senator Ted Kennedy also has tried to get a health care plan passed but the republicans once again stopped him. You see, with a health care plan drug companies, for profit hospitals, clinics, insurance companies wont become multi millionaires over the sickness and death of americans and republicans just cant let that happen, since it is just these types of companies that hire lobbyists who have the republican congress in their pockets. Yes, it is Bushs fault. He is the president, he has the power to sway the republican controlled congress. Instead of focusing on tort reform, bankruptcy law changes, which will affect middle class workers, does nothing to stop the trumps and other big businesses from filing for bankruptcy, privatizing social security, nonbid contracts to cheneys old company, he needs to focus on what affects the american worker, the ones who pay the majority of the taxes. Yes, healthcare is certainly one of the priorities for americans. In every poll I have seen it rates right up there with iraq and jobs and gas prices. Bush is going to give iraq free health care..what are his priorities, definitely not for the workers of america.
Someone has to pay for universal health care....
she knows that. Her plan will cost billions. The only way to pay for it is to force those who can afford it to buy it (as many choose not to so they can use that money for other things...and I don't mean eating...she knows that too). That is the one thing people who want socialized medicine, government-run health care don't realize. It is not FREE. If they don't get you in premiums they will get you in taxes...because who supplies the government with the money it spends...why that would be us, the taxpayers. What a concept. I don't know why Hillary saying she would not be opposed to garnishment should surprise anyone. That way when she hits us with higher taxes, they won't have to be quite as high. And don't think the "rich" can pick up the tab...they already pay way over 50% of the total tax money into the tills as it is, and there isn't enough money to go around. And while we are at it...show me a place in the Constitution where it says the government should provide health care, welfare, or anything like that? You won't find it. The founders were about less government, not more government. I don't understand why people would want to let themselves become tied to the government for their every need. Where does that place all the control? With the government, not with the people. Hello socialism, good-bye freedom. SIGH.
Health care reform
What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?
Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.
I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.
illegal health care
I so agree with you on this. I typed a lot of reports a while back that are similar to what you are typing. Also, I thought it funny how many illegal adults were getting care through the hospital as well. The only way I knew this was those who were illegal did not have SS# when every other patient did. It's sad. I took a 2nd full-time job just so I could have insurance!
We are already paying for the health care
...of those folks you mention. Who did you think pays for all the uninsured health care in this country? Santa Claus? Folks without insurance often wait until the last minute and then utilize ER services which in the end cost more than if they'd been followed in a clinic.
It also sounds like you believe that kids of welfare abusers should be punished because their parents can't/don't/won't provide for them. I don't agree. All children deserve basic care regardless of who their parents are. We are a wealthy country, after all.
Personally, I'd be happy to pitch in on my taxes to help provide a health care program for the uninsured. Better that than funding a war in Iraq.
health care question
I am wondering if all government employees have health care coverage, that would be, for instance, nurses in VA Hospitals, clerical workers, postal workers. I assume all civil servants have health care coverage, but how inclusive is it? If you have taken the civil service exam and have gained employment through that process, what type of coverage is available. Is it just like the rest of us, 5 to 6 convoluted plans offered as "options" or is it more like full coverage with doctors and hospitals of your choice and perhaps even alternative medicine included. Is a respiratory therapist at a VA Hospital for instance, considered a government employee or simply at respiratory therapist who works at the VA?? The reason I ask these questions is that I see a good deal of what I would describe as socialized medicine going on in the present as well as the past. Poor people have Medicaid, older people have Medicare, some states have supplements to both, i.e. TennCare and California something or other. The VA has programs, some lacking, some not; but available to all who seek it. Elected representatives have full coverage. There is coverage for children (though recently nipped in the bud) but still there is coverage available provided by the government so it seems to me that we have partial socialized medicine here already. This is a serious question and I would like to hear, bearing in mind the above (I admit you could fill the Library of Congress with what I don't know about the intricacies of insurance coverage - please no snide comments here) but I want to know why socialized medicine seems such a threat to people when we already have so much of it which does not concern one iota those who benefit from it.
Obama and health care.
Listen,
It is human nature to be scared of of something different, People will remain in jobs while their wages sink, afraid that things could be worse if they leave.
There are reasons this time around that the AMA, the American Cancer Society and namy other prominant organizations are encouraging a single payer system, the reason being that the current system in in a shambles, and serving less and less. The premiums are exhorbitant not only for individuals but businesses as well, the current system is severely crippling job grown, and as an aside if one is so fortunate as to have health insurance, well over 70% of legitimate claims are being denied routinely.
When things get to that point, and they have, it is better to swallow the fear and make some changes when the current system is in a complete shambles. The benefits far outway the fear of making changes to a severely flawed system.
universal health care
Sorry, but I don't need that help. Having done my own research, I know that the health care system in Canada (your example) has major flaws, like ridiculous waits for even the most simple testing, not to mention the lack of choices for one's care, and that other countries have substandard care because of their universal systems. All this does is invite "country club medicine." Canadian citizens come to the US and pay out of their own pockets because their system does not work for them. If you think govt control is the answer to health care, you only need to look at what they have done to Medicare and Medicaid. Obama's health plan is one more component in his overall plan toward the socialization of this country. Hope you like it when your hard work and your paycheck does nothing BUT support others. Where is the incentive to work? Don't get me wrong; I do believe every individual should have access to health care. I also think every individual who is capable of contributing (working) should have to do so in order to reap that benefit, and I do not think government intervention is the answer. And your whole statement about the CEOs being rich makes me so nervous. What is your solution there? spread the wealth? She/he is not entitled to have more money than you? Yup, another step toward the socialization of this country. See how well that has worked worldwide.
economy, war, health care nm
nm
What do you actually know about health care in Cuba? sm
from what I have been able to find out about it, Cuba has excellent basic healthcare for all. Do you have sources that say different, or are you just guessing?
Patriot Act/health care
You mean HC, of course. She was not different than any other congress and senate members. Patriot Act parts 1 and 2 were passed BEFORE the Iraq War WMD Bush lies, people die justification based on faulty intelligence was revealed. It makes me crazy that it is still there and I truly hope to see it revised or scrapped sometime in the next 4 years.
I am asking you, seriously...do you know when you started feeling vulnerable to govt control? I feel that too, but I am sure for different reasons than you...and I really am interested to know what make you feel that way.
Obama's plan is not a socialist plan like the ones you are referring to. He is not taking free enterprise out of health care. He is proposing to open up the existing plan that now covers Congress, the senate and federal employees. I have looked at that plan. It offers a number of choices in terms of deductible amounts, types of coverage (HMO, PPO, etc), premium amounts and the like. Pre-existing conditions are covered under some of those plans, if not all of them. He is aiming his pre-existing changes toward private insurance companies as part of his health plan.
It works like any other group plan. If you broaden the base of employees (in this case, citizens added to the plan by CHOICE, not force), the premiums come down. The care remains the same. You are free to choose the plan that best suits your needs or elect to keep your existing insurance. For Obama, it is a question of giving people access to affordable health care. He is not suggesting to transfer tax dollars to create the kind of plan you are describing that you consider to be subpar.
What is TriCare? I have to leave for a little while, but when I get back I will try to retrieve the link I used to inspect the existing federal plan and if I find it, I will post it later this afternoon. BTW, I know I come on strong and use sarcasm to a fault when I feel I am dealing with a poster who I think (sometimes mistakenly) is either ill informed or showing disrespect...not when having healthy debates over differences in opinion, beliefs or ideology. Those debates end up being the most informative of all and are a lot more satisfying than just preaching to the choir. Another post about health care.....
Consider this post educational. This is a post, from someone who lives with a single-payer health care system in a social democracy, explaining why I believe that this is a good way to make sure that everyone can receive health care.
Health care stateside costs more than 2.8 trillion USD per year. More than HALF of that money is spent on clerical help, at the doctor's office, at the lab, at the hospital, at the insurer, by the insurer to deny coverage for whatever they can deny. The reason that 62% of bankruptcies every year are due to catastrophic medical emergencies and 78% of those emergencies are insured, including 60% who had private insurance, not medicaid.., is the profit motive and the incentive it provides to deny coverage (stats from recent Harvard study). The same study found that most of these bankruptcies were solidly middle-class people hit by an unexpected medical emergency. These are not the powerless of the world; these are the people that keep the economy running.
The US spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, for a lower standard of care and a poorer result.
For instance, Canada's lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 11,000; not as good as Austria and Norway, but in the top 11. The US risk is 1 in 4,800 about twice Canada's rate and close to Mauritius. (Stats from Unicef) If you look closer at rates by race, you find that white women have about the same risk as women in Canada; blacks and Hispanics make up the difference, and that was shocking to me. Another shock to me was to find that more than one woman had been denied maternity care, as it was a pre-existing condition. Oh yes, and that Viagra is covered, but birth control often is not.
As it stands now, the US government covers the elderly, infirm, disabled and the poor. The private insurers get their pick of those that remain, and insurance is tied to your employment, which means that you are liable to find yourself without insurance at the very point that you need it most. Insurance often covers a portion of prescriptions, vision care and dental, but only a portion and not always. The portion of coverage declines the more common the need is. There are no drug price caps; the US is practically the only nation in the world not to have them.
IF the government were to cover everyone via a single-payer system, the cost of insuring everyone would cost less, much less than that 2.8 trillion every year.
Single-payer is not socialized medicine. It is exactly what it says it is. The government acts as the main insurer. Doctors are mostly in private practice, although there are a few clinics, usually attached to hospitals. Hospitals tend to be run either by the province or as charitable or private entities, or a combination of both. The choice of doctor is left to the patient; truthfully, patients in Canada have a larger choice of doctors than patients in the US. One's insurer doesn't dictate one's health care provider. It is true that we do not, currently, have dental or prescription care provided by medicare. That is, as it is stateside, covered by a private insurer, if at all. On the other hand, medications here are 1/3 of the price, generally, that they are stateside.
Doctors are paid by the government, yes, but they are billed in the same way an insurer would be. They are paid for provision of services. The main difference is that the insurer is the government; that means that between 10 and 30% of the cost of providing the service is cut. The government doesn't take a profit, doesn't deny services, gives no bonuses for denying services, and has, in fact, no interest in denying services. This means that everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is covered.
Malpractice suits are not as onerous here as there. There is a cost, of course, associated with lost wages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, lost companionship or a lost parent, but there is no cost associated with lifetime medical care, which is the biggest portion of the US awards. Since health care is taken care of by the government, there is no extra cost for this; the government won't deny coverage, which a private insurer will. It has nothing to do with the government restricting awards; it has everything to do with future health care being taken care of.
How is it paid for? At the beginning, it was paid for through a payment collected by your employer. If I recall correctly, it was $33.00 per person at the beginning. It worked, and well, but it became obvious that the cheapest way to provide healthcare was to charge everyone through taxes, which were progressive, as a flat charge was not. Taxes were charged on tobacco and alcohol to offset the social and medical costs of their use, and that's a fair way to deal with it. Are taxes higher here? Actually, not much.
That is, in part, due to a different set of priorities.
However, If you can find a trillion dollars in three or four days to keep a bloated and corrupt Wall Street afloat, and a couple of trillion dollars for the occupation of Iraq, shouldn't it be as easy to find cash to institute single payer health care in order to keep the population healthy and relieve the burden of increasing health care costs on business?
Health care unionized?
Well I never....I've heard lots of union bashing but that's a new one.
Agree illegal health care has got to go!
I type an account where there appears to be many illegal aliens in that area, in that 90% of the babies getting tests have a hispanic last name and its often mentioned interpreters were needed to speak to the parents. Some never get a first name, I'd say at least 25% of the babies I type reports for have been in and out of intensive care for up to a year and still are going by "babyboy" or "babygirl" as a first name. Page after page of tests performed for each baby, and that's just in my specialty! We have to be spending millions on this and for what, to enourage them to come here and dump their babies at the hospital at birth and not even bother to name them? It makes me really disgusted to type the 50th report for "babyboy gonzalez" who is 18 months old and still in the ICU for congenital heart problems/lung problems, knowing darn well his healthcare is free while I can barely afford to insure my own child! We owe these illegals nothing yet we rob from our own to cater to them! Are we crazy?You keep saying I don't want affordable health care for children...
I have said the opposite. What I don't want is expansion of a program that is already NOT working. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT WILLING TO WAIT SIX MONTHS FOR A BETTER PROGRAM? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW?? See, we could yell at each other over this from now on, and never agree. I would like the waste to stop. Yes, I would. I would like to see Social Security fixed. Yes I would. The war in Iraq is going on, and until our troops are home, I don't want funding pulled from there, that is right, I don't. I would like for goverment to be in my pocket less, yes. I would like to see a push toward individual responsibility again, yes I would. I don't think the government should provide health care for adults, and yes, it scares me to make the government responsible for kids health care. Look how they managed Medicare...Medicaid...good grief!! Why not try to get this program RIGHT? Why just throw more money at the waste? Basically what you are talking about is socialism, and that is more scary to me than anything else we have discussed here. And, frankly, as far as common sense goes...I think you are not thinking in the long run of where government run health care leads. It leads to lines, it leads to substandard care...I hate to say it, but look at the VA system. Tell me THAT government-run health care is working?? We know it DOESN'T. Veterans have to wait very, very long lengths of time for care, for appointments...what makes you think government run health care for children would be any better?? It is better to leave it in the private sector where there is competition and the care is better? Let's reward responsibility and give those $80K families tax relief. Make it mandatory for parents to cover their kids like it is mandatory that they ride in car seats and wear seat belts. Let's reward responsibility and keep level of care where it is. Please, please let's not go down the socialized medicine road just to get free health care....I honestly, as God is my witness, do not think it will benefit kids in the long run if they are all in some kind of government health plan.
As to Bush, I could care less what the headlines are. All I am saying is that the Dems in Congress are using this as an election sound bite and the Republicans who voted with them are doing the same. Misguided, all of them, in my opinion. While I do not agree with Bush on a multitude of things, I do agree with him on keeping health care in the private sector and the government OUT of it.
I agree that there is a problem with health care...
and insurance in this country. What I disagree with is expanding yet another entitlement program to throw more money down an endless well.
This is what Huckabee has to say, and I think it makes a lot of sense:
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system.
We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict.
We do need to get serious about preventive health care.
I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs.
I value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.
When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.
As President, I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health care, people do, and move from employer-based to consumer-based health care.
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.
I also value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and I will encourage those efforts. As President I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.
As a personal aside, I have one of those health savings accounts and it has helped me on more than one occasion. I like the idea of deductions for health insurance premiums for everyone. I like that a lot. I like the idea of tax credits for lower income people who maintain their own insurance. Child care credits worked. Why wouldn't child health care credits?
I just don't think another wide open *gimme* program will work. This program as it went to Bush would open the doors to higher income people who are now paying their own premiums to stop doing that and get on a program. That is going in the WRONG direction. Instead give those people tax deductions for 100% of those premiums paid. For those who are in the lower income brackets struggling to pay their own premiums so as not to get on a program, reward that with tax credits. Let's reward responsibility instead of encourage irresponsibility.
Just one humble opinion.
No posts regarding war, poverty, health care....
only bush bashing. Don't pretend you actuallyt talk about issues here. You don't.
Socialized health care = semantics...
what it boils down to is, when you have the federal government start administering all health care, quality of care will go down, not up, and access to care will be even more difficult. You cited Medicare and Medicaid...both rife with waste and fraud. We read about it every other day. The VA system for soldiers is federally run...tell me how well THAT is working, and that is not for every person in the US. I would like a poll of rank and file Canadians...I would like to know what individuals think of their health system. The only one I saw quoted said 55% of his paycheck is taken off the top for taxes, and a large part of that is what funds the health care system. There ARE waiting lists for operations. And even if you have the money privately to pay for your own operation if time constraint is involved, you are NOT allowed to jump the "list." That is why many Canadians cross the border for emergent care and surgery. Just a couple of weeks ago there was the story of the two women with high-risk pregnancies who could not be hospitalized because there was nowhere to put them. They ended up in Seattle.
So no thanks. I would much rather have a full cost of premiums tax refund, which is what some have proposed. Yeah, you will still have to cough up the premiums for a year, but then if you take your refund at the end of the year and put it in the bank...voila. There are your premiums for the next year. And we can keep the quality of care we have and the access we have.
That would be my choice, far, far ahead of any kind of federal government subsidized and administered health care...which is what Hillary is proposing, only calling it "universal" instead of socialized. Same difference.
More on the French health care system...
reality rears its ugly head....
French healthcare is 'badly run'
Plans for spending cuts have drawn protests from health workers
France must make big changes to its health system in order to cut waste and increase efficiency, a government-commissioned report is warning.
The report says citizens must pay more and doctors must alter their behaviour.
Failure to do so could add 66 billion euros a year to France's public budget deficit by 2020, it adds.
The warning comes after thousands of health workers protested on Thursday over staff shortages and the "creeping privatisation" of the health system.
'Badly regulated'
The report was written by the High Council for the Future of Health Insurance, an advisory body set up by the government as it prepares to introduce healthcare reform legislation in June.
PRESCRIPTION BILL
Average French GP prescribes drugs worth 260,000 euros a year
The French use three times as many antibiotics as Germans
They use twice as many anti-cholestorol drugs as Britons
A fifth of health spending goes on pharmaceuticals
It includes representatives from the health insurance industry, trade unions and medical professionals.
The report was given to the Health Ministry on Friday, but details were leaked by the Reuters news agency which saw a copy.
The standard of care provided by French doctors is ranked among the best in the world, but the report says the system is "badly regulated and badly governed".
"The High Council believes that general confusion over who is in charge of what partly explains the excesses," it says.
"Everyone - institutions, healthcare professionals and social security contributors - will have to change their behaviour."
Higher insurance payments?
The report says French general practitioners prescribe on average 260,000 euros' worth of drugs a year.
BUDGET STRAINS
Health spending nearing 9% of GDP
Projected healthcare deficit this year - 10.9 billion euros
Deficit in 2010 if nothing is done - 29 billion euros
Healthcare deficit to account for 20% of total public deficit this year
It says the French consume three times as many antibiotics as the Germans, and more than twice as many anti-cholesterol drugs as the British.
The council also highlights the CSG welfare levy - a charge paid by workers, the unemployed and pensioners - as an area for possible reform.
"The High Council is unanimous in its refusal to turn to massive indebtedness to cover the growth in health insurance expenditure," the report said.
"The CSG, with its large base and the principle of proportionality that underpins it, could seem like a possible answer," it said.
The council said even a structural shake-up of the system would not necessarily rule out the need to raise further revenues.
Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, which set up the council last October to advise the government on healthcare reform, said last week the government had not been planning a rise in the CSG as part of the healthcare reforms.
Growing deficit
The report says an ageing population and the high cost of advanced treatments will help push health spending past 9% of gross domestic product - one of the highest levels in the world.
Number of doctors per 1,000 people
Italy - 4.1
France - 3.3
Germany - 3.3
UK - 2.0
Japan - 1.9
Source: British Medical Association. Figures for 2000
Experts have already warned that a projected healthcare deficit of 10.9 billion euros this year could rise to 29 billion euros by 2010, unless action is taken.
Looking further ahead, the report says the deficit could rise to 66 billion euros by 2020.
Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has already put forward a plan known as "Hospital 2007" proposing management reforms and a new emphasis on cost assessment.
Problems in the French health system were exposed last year, when a heat wave killed around 15,000 mostly elderly people.
There was also a bed shortage in hospitals in December, when a nationwide flu and bronchitis epidemic broke out.
The rate at which infants die in the United States has dropped substantially over the past half-century, but broad disparities remain among racial groups, and the country stacks up poorly next to other industrialized nations.
In 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available, roughly seven babies died for every 1,000 live births before reaching their first birthday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. That was down from about 26 in 1960.
Babies born to black mothers died at two and a half times the rate of those born to white mothers, according to the CDC figures.
The United States ranks near the bottom for infant survival rates among modernized nations. A Save the Children report last year placed the United States ahead of only Latvia, and tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.
The same report noted the United States had more neonatologists and newborn intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom — but still had a higher rate of infant mortality than any of those nations.
Doctors and analysts blame broad disparities in access to health care among racial and income groups in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the picture is far bleaker in poorer countries, particularly in Africa. A 2005 World Health Organization report found infant mortality rates as high as 144 per 1,000 births — more than 20 times the U.S. rate — in Liberia.
Figure something out that doesnt make lobbyists and CEOs of ins. co. filthy rich.
Sound unreasonable? If so, and you think everyth8ing is just ~fine~ you should seek some help for the sake of your country.
financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about.
Deregulation of health care system...
kiss your butt good-bye.
Obama says you can keep your employer health care....
but if you don't have, the government will step in. Under his tax proposals, how long do you think business will be able to afford health care for employees? Not very darned long. So, in the end, he gets what he wants...government controlled health care. He has changed the way he described it to try to end around the socialism tag of universal health care. Nice try, but no cigar. He is not fooling me. But, I don't take every word that falls out of his mouth as gospel like some do either (and I am not singling you out specifically).
I have no problem with health care for "children"
but not for children upwards of 30 years of age.
Several states are allowing this now, age 26 and up to age 30. All you have to do is Google it, and you'll find the info.
I think after the age of, oh, 21, people are not "children" anymore, don't you?
I'm not talking about children with disabilities, that truly need help after age 21.
I'm talking about adults who refuse to work and are not insured. Those are the ones that will commit fraud.
I know of one 25 year old who does this now, claiming to live at home with his parents, when he does not, but he is still on their insurance.
Would you call that fraud?
Guess what? I'll take SOME health care over
Betsy McCaughey? Uh-huh.
I think there's a big misunderstanding about universal health care
And anyone that has had the cheapest medical insurance you can get knows this - just because you have insurance doesn't mean you're covered. It might cover doctor visits for sinus infections and such, along with certain prescription medications, but like the poster above said, God forbid you need something serious because the government can turn you down just as easily as an insurance company.
A friend of mine moved to the US from Canada because she found a lump in her breast. Her doctor in Canada told her to keep an eye on it and come back in six months. She waited and went back and the doctor told her he wanted to do a biopsy and to come back in four months for that. She came to the US for a second opinion, got a biopsy, was diagnosed with breast cancer, had surgery and recieved chemotherapy all in the four months it would have taken her to just have the biopsy in Canada. She has since become a citizen of the US and gave up her citizenship of Canada just for that reason. She is now a 6 year cancer survivor.
I don't want to see that kind of thing happen in this country and that's what we would get with universal health care. Agreed that something has to be done about the prices of medical treatment, but to put the government in charge of it is not the right way to go.
some universal health care info from
Oh my goodness, regarding universal health care, unfortunately these things are just not so. How are things worse off - everyone is covered, for everything, no matter how rich or poor, or sick. Will you have to wait longer, possibly, I don't know (do you have a reference for comparison) but you will be treated - absolutely no one is turned down who can derive benefit from treatment.
Losing your best doctors? Where are they going?
The government will pay for elective things like knee replacements, do pay for them every day.
If you have cancer and the treatment is experimental, there are drug trials (for free), provincial assistance programs (for free) and compassionate release programs via drug companies (for free). No "death certificates are signed" If you are not happy with your treatment, you can see another doctor, any doctor you choose, and no one will say you cannot have a treatment or see a physican because of money!
Hi, all. Here's one site to keep an eye on what your government is doing with health care:
http://www.cprights.org/
I do not want socialized medicine. In England, if you're over 55 and need dialysis? Too bad. You're over the age limit. Folks, this is a government run program and they have to draw the line somewhere. Think you'll still be able to get the same meds you're on now? Don't think they'll say some of them are too expensive?
I should warn you - this is a conservative web site, so if you really dislike conservatives, this isn't the site for you but it does appear to look like a good site to keep an eye on health care reform and you can sign up to receive updates on health care reform as it happens.
I don't know about you but right now, our entire country, our people, are losing the war - the war on freedom. We may lose little battles here and there but if you feel it's important enough, and I do, write your representatives, the president, whoever. Fight those little battles. We don't want to look back 4 years from now and say Oh, man, we should have done this or that...... I don't want to log in to the Q one morning to find out the government, as they have already done since O took over, has passed another bill while I was sleeping (some congressman and senators were threatened with Marshall law and a plummeting stock market if they didn't sign certain bills, which they had less than an hour to read) and now my job is gone because we have new healthcare.
Fight for your jobs! Our government cannot run Medicare and Medicaid and they're both sucking us dry, meanwhile giving really low reimbursement rates to doctors. Do you really think they can successfully insure our entire country? I'll let you judge for yourselves.
Heard dribs and drabs about this about a month ago. He wants to tax the employers who provide health care to the employees. Does that sound like he wants all of us to abide by HIS healthcare plan?
Please TAKE NOTICE..... Bold and underlined portions are my emphasis. Read the whole article link below.
"Obama wants a health care reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.....
,,,,About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."
This report is dated June 18. I was a bit off yesterday when I stated $1 Trillion cost. It is now up to $1.6 Trillion...over the next 10 years. The proposal is now over 400 pages with 388 amendments.
"That effort hit a snag earlier this week when the Congressional Budget Office attached a $1.6 trillion price tag to a preliminary version -- far more than many senators are prepared to spend. The figure shocked key Democrats, who were scrambling yesterday to make adjustments that would slash the price by more than a third.
Among the changes under discussion, according to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.): tightening eligibility for federal subsidies to purchase insurance, which had been set at 400 percent of the federal poverty level; and potentially requiring businesses to pay more if they decide not to provide insurance coverage to their workers.
Committee members also were still struggling with the shape of a government-sponsored insurance plan that would be available to people who could not get coverage elsewhere. Republicans are opposed to any government-run plan, though they are willing to consider Conrad's proposal to form insurance cooperatives run by consumers.
The panel also had yet to settle on a financing package, though aides said members are looking at imposing a tax on the health premiums millions of families receive through their employers, with any premiums over $17,000 a year being taxed as income beginning in 2013. Setting the cap that high would generate less revenue than Democrats had hoped for, a Finance Committee aide said, forcing them to revisit an idea they had once flatly rejected: President Obama's proposal to tax high-earning families by limiting the value of their itemized deductions."
I am sure there are people dying now who have no health care...
there are millions dying who DO. You really think that preventative and "maintenance" health care are going to "drastically" cut the number of catastrophic events...how do you figure that? Are you going to change the way people think? I would like to know the percentage of people who ARE insured who do preventative and maintenance health care? I know a whole lot of women who don't go for Paps and mammos every year, who are covered, simply because they don't want to. Has nothing to do with being insured or not. In fact, I would be willing to bet that a lot of people who are insured don't even use it until they have that catastrophic event and that is when they use it...that is what they think they have it for. And Obama and his advisors know that too...if he wants that kind of rationale to work then he is going to have to think of a way to force people to engage in preventative and maintenance health care...well maybe that is where the national security force comes in. Sigh.
So now the health care is Bush's fault? Hummmmmm....sm
I seem to recall that someone named Clinton ran largely on a platform to redo the health care plan, but of course, no one on the left ever remembers that. Bush is suddenly responsible for every sin including original sin.
Yeah, check out health care in Cuba....
quite an acorn.
Universal health care is a frightening prospect.. sm
Ask anyone from Canada what they think of their health-care system and you're likely to be shocked. A friend's father has been waiting over a year on a list for a knee replacement, and another friend waited 42 hours on a gurney in the ER while having a heart attack. Nurses and doctors don't want to work there because the salaries are substandard and set by the government. Do you not think this is the direction we're headed in if Obama becomes president?
Makes national health care look cheap
Only $75 billion to cover 95% of us. It will be hard to pass that up at such a bargin price.
Obama's top three health care campaign lies
“So here’s John McCain’s radical plan in a nutshell: he taxes health care benefits for the first time in history… Well, I don’t think that’s right.”
What Obama says now:
Obama ally Sen. Max Baucus told the Washington Post that Obama is now willing to tax employer-provided health benefits. Baucus said: “Yeah, it’s something that he might consider. That was discussed. It’s on the table.”
Limiting or ending the tax-free status of health benefits makes sense if it’s used to cut other taxes and put all health insurance—employer-provided or not—on a level playing field. The existing benefit is an artifact of World War II-era price controls and creates a tax penalty for people who buy their own insurance.
But unlike the McCain plan, which would have taxed employer-provided health benefits and used the money to pay for a new health care tax credit, the plan now being considered by Democrats, including Obama, would tax employer-health benefits to fund increased government health care spending. For the 250 million-plus Americans who already have health insurance, this is a raw deal—they pay more taxes and get nothing in return.
Lie Number 2: I Won’t Force You to Buy Health Insurance
“The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t.”
“I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility — making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone’s costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility.”
While President Obama did say he would like a waiver process in hardship cases, there is no reason to have a mandate other than to force people to buy insurance who don’t want to, mostly young people who are healthy and want to spend their limited income on their young careers and families. According to the Census Bureau, about 60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, with the highest rates in the 18-24 bracket (28.1 percent uninsured) and the 25-34 (25.7 percent uninsured) bracket. This is about forcing some people who don’t want health insurance to pay for other people through a new government program. It’s more spreading the wealth around.
President Obama is poised to accept this provision for the same reason Sen. Clinton proposed it—to buy off insurance companies. Democrats learned a lesson from the 1993 HillaryCare fight when the insurance companies stopped a Washington health care takeover. The mandate is a giveaway to insurance companies to buy their support this time by forcing healthy young people who use less health care to pay insurance premiums.
Lie Number 3: If You Aren’t Rich, I Won’t Raise Your Taxes
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
What Obama says now:
Well, it’s hard to keep up because new ideas are floated every day, but they all would involve taxing people who make less than $250,000. In fact, even his income tax hikes for the rich have now been dropped down to start at $235,000. Then there’s the soft drink excise tax, the cap-and-trade energy taxes, and most recently the VAT, a form of national sales tax. And of course the tax on health benefits I mentioned above would also break the only-tax-the-rich pledge.
What all these proposals have in common: we all pay, big-time, likely trillions of dollars in higher taxes for “free” government health care. In fact, that’s probably the biggest lie of all—that government health care is free.
Opinions on Hillary's proposed health care system?
Personally, I'm against mandatory health insurance laws. Look how mandatory auto insurance goes - you buy the cheapest policy because you can't afford the good ones. Your policy covers squat, but you're legal. I'm concerned the "affordable" health insurance she wants to force us to buy will turn into the same thing - a crap policy that covers nothing but keeps you legal. Does anybody else feel like I do about this?
I have heard Fred Thompson talk about health care...
but I take that sort of thing with a grain of salt anyway. The President can only put forth a plan...it is up to Congress to say yay or nay on it. You need to listen to what your senatorial and representative candidates when it comes their turns. And hold them accountable if they run on one platform and when it comes to a vote they choke. It is in Congress where things like health care will be changed. I believe we the people should, like I have said before, look into the recall procedure (meaning call a representative back to the state he/she came from and sending someone else) if they don't do the job they promised to do. They don't represent us anymore, they represent themselves and the party line and that occurs on both sides. And it needs to change on both sides. I could not vote for any of the Democrat candidates because we have too many core differences, before we ever get to issues. My parents were both Democrats, but had they lived they would not recognize the party as it exists today. It has changed that much.
All I was countering with the Clinton stuff was to illustrate a point...both men are flawed. And George Bush is not an unintelligent man by any stretch. He is just not a slick politician. I know a lot of down-home guys who talk a lot like him, and they are not dummies by any means. You don't get an MBA if you are unintelligent(and please don't go down that he got into harvard and got an MBA because he has money road, it would not be becoming). But I think we can quit rehashing all that and agree to disagree.
I am concerned about healthcare, but it is not my primary concern in the next election cycle.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.
Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.
Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.
"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.
The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.
Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.
Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.
"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.
The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.
The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.
(Editing by Todd Eastham)
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)
Support for national health care from surprizing source
MONDAY, March 31 (HealthDay News) -- A majority of American doctors now support the concept of national health insurance, which represents a shift in thinking over the past five years, a new survey finds. Typically, national health insurance plans involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that guarantees health coverage for everyone. In most cases, these plans eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies.
A survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States found that 59 percent support "government legislation to establish national health insurance," while 32 percent oppose it, and 9 percent are neutral. In 2002, a similar survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported the concept, while 40 percent opposed it.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and reflect their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support the government creating national health insurance," study author Dr. Aaron E. Carroll, director of Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, said in a prepared statement.
The new findings were included in a study published March 31 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Support for national health insurance has increased across all medical specialties, said study co-author Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University's School of Medicine.
"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a prepared statement.
The strongest support for NHI is among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent), and family physicians (60 percent). About 55 percent of general surgeons support NIH, roughly double their level of support in 2002.
About 47 million Americans lack health insurance coverage, and it's believed another 50 million are underinsured. Health-care costs in the United States are increasing about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation. Many doctors are concerned about these issues, according to background information in the study.
Last December, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians -- the nation's largest medical specialty group -- endorsed a single-payer national health insurance program. Universal health care and President Obama's real plan -
I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for. I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan.
President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.
If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
health care will go up and that the only way to pay for it is to tax the he!! out of us or to tell us we can't have surgeries, etc. If you think insurance companies are stingy in what they will pay for....you ain't seen nothing yet.
As for Fox, they are a conservative network but at least they report more fairly then MSNBC does. MSNBC does nothing but cut down conservatives and only report what they deem makes Obama look wonderful. You are the one who needs to get a clue. Every time I turn on my TV there is a thing I can select that shows me the top 5 channels being watched and would you believe that none of your channels are on that top 5 and Fox is almost always within the top 5 throughout the day. So spare me.
I see more news covering both conversative and liberal sides on Fox than I've ever seen from CNN or MSNBC. There is a difference between leaning one way and being so biased that you don't report the whole story. Fox may lean conservative but at least they report fairly on things and that is a lot more than I can say for MSNBC. They are a joke when it comes to reporting and journalism. The only time MSNBC reports on conservatives is when they do nothing but make fun. That isn't reporting the opposing side. That is shoving your media bias into people's faces and it is pathetic and people now it....that is why Fox has higher ratings.
marks the location of current message within thread
![Healthcare](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39774000/jpg/_39774703_1wheelchairap203cred.jpg")
!["](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif"){kind=small}
![AP](http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif"){kind=small}
!["](http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=472064181&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News"){kind=small}
![Sphere](http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/iconSphere.gif")
Sphere
