National Health Care
74
HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA
In the June 1st issue of The New Yorker magazine is an outstanding account of what is wrong with our health care system in America. But after presenting the evidence, the author comes to the complete opposite of the correct conclusion about what caused this problem and how to rectify it. This battle, soon to be raged, is about yet another huge loss of our freedom to make our own decisions about our lives. Worse, it is about giving the government the power to decide who lives and who dies. A power that, sooner or later, will be wielded in accordance with one's political views. And this power will surely be used to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will—or quit the medical field.
Health Care represents 17 per cent of our entire economy. Don't brush past that sentence lightly. To give the government control over this much of our economy amounts to succumbing to the failed political ideology of Central Planning. It will create a leviathan bureaucracy employing hundreds of thousands of pencil pushers who contribute nothing to National Wealth. Central Planning is the centerpiece of Marxism, with the goal of giving the government complete power over the lives of its citizens. It has been tried for 80 years in the Soviet Union and was a horrendous failure, robbing the people of all incentive to productivity, efficiency and innovation. Marxism resulted in a miserable standard of living. Even the "poor" in America live far better than all of those Soviets—except the few who were in the government.
To The Left in America, the solution is more government control of Health Care. But the cause of the problem we have is that the government got involved in the first place in the 1960s with Medicaid and Medicare. Does anybody recall hearing about the health care crisis we had in the 1950s? There wasn't one. The solution is to get the government out of health care altogether by dismantling Medicare and Medicaid and going to a free market solution with patients and doctors in control—no government middle man. "How can that be?" Ask those taught that we must have the government teet on which to suck.
What the New Yorker article brilliantly reveals is that Americans on Medicaid and Medicare are constantly subjected to unnecessary tests (which are invasive, painful and dangerous) and unneeded surgeries by the bucketfuls. And the article shows the results in patients lives are often undesirable. But the author decides this the fault of greedy doctors; when in fact it is primarily because the government will pay for any test or surgery they order, and to do as many as possible reduces their odds of malpractice suits. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is the mantra of The Left—meaning—never let a chance to grab control over people's freedom, to enhance your own power, go to waste.
The reason each of these unnecessary procedures are over- priced is that the government sets the prices for half of all health care spending in America now, with over a million set prices for medical care. Some prices are set too high, resulting in a surplus of those services; and some too low, resulting in a shortage of those services. That is what happens when the state interferes with the free market. Don't we all notice the price of technology steadily comes down unless it is medical technology? That's because the government doesn't set the prices of computers, cell phones and plasma television sets. In most commodities consumers exercise value judgment about the dollars they spend; and this causes goods and services to become better and cheaper.
Medicaid and Medicare were supposed to cost the taxpayer $4B a year, when they were implemented. The budget is now over $600B with unfunded future liabilities of $80,000,000,000,000. That is how successful the government has been, so far, managing health care. So what does The Left say? We need more, much more!
The only way the government can control prices is to ration care. Oh, they can try to reduce salaries for doctors and nurses and cut what they will pay for certain procedures; but this leads to the loss of talented people, who may choose other lines of work instead of medicine. And this will reduce capital investment in research and development—the one area of health care where America unquestionably leads the world today because we still have a semblance of a free market system that rewards innovation. Medicare and Medicaid are the reason our federal budget will double to 40 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (the value of all goods and services produced by our nation) by 2090.
Governments cannot create wealth—only its citizens can, through entrepreneurship, with the state staying out of the way. Patients should pay cash for ordinary services and have insurance for catastrophic illnesses. People should be able to buy this insurance from the Geico lizard. Why not? It works for all other kinds of insurance when the government stands down. The Left will claim that nobody will serve the poor if this happens. That is nonsense. In America, we should have learned by now, that—if the government will get out of the way—supply ALWAYS rises up to meet demand. Someone like Walmart might get into the medical business. Decry that if you want but truthfully, Walmart has been the greatest innovation for the poor since bread. If we eliminate the government acting as middleman, the free market will deliver the best possible medical care for an affordable price; absent the red-tape and bureaucratic meddling.
For those who want to defend socialized medicine as practiced in Britain or Canada, check out this web site http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html or here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/inequities_in_socialized_healt.html
The most precious asset your family has is its health. Do you want to make informed decisions about your health care or do you want a bureaucrat to do it for you? Government control has sinister implications, such as euthanasia. Suppose the government decides every American is required to have a certain vaccination that you disagree with; or a certain mind-numbing pill? Or that every male child should be on Ritalin? Need I remind everyone of the arrest warrant issued for the parents who did not want chemotherapy for their son a few weeks ago—a chilling violation of American freedom. Many doctors are against chemo—it can kill you. Do you want a bureaucrat to decide you, or your children, must have government mandated chemo or radiation or surgery—or not?
What The Left wants—what they always want—is to make citizens dependent upon the government because this creates a permanent electoral constituency for them. Read that again, please. Don't worry, Johnny; there is no need to make anything out of yourself in this world and contribute anything to society. There is no need to study in school; to read great books; to learn a trade or skill that is beneficial to those in your community; to behave as an upright citizen: The government programs will take care of you with the sweat off the brow of other people.
Our Declaration of Independence (bookmark that last word in your brain) and Constitution (and Bill of Rights) has provided us with a set of governing principles intended to leave us as a nation of individuals both politically free and morally responsible.
Is there anything in your life you think would be better run by government bureaucrats? For most of us, the answer is a laughable "No." The socialized part of our national health care is funded from taxes robbed from the people at the point of a gun. It is insulated from the health-care marketplace and thus from rational decision-making. Health care is currently one of the few industries not properly influenced by market dynamics. The essence of the problem is that the consumers (the patients) are not the buyers. They do not possess the financial leverage, which consumers have in almost every other sector of our economy, because they do not pay the bills.
Our health care in America is run by huge bureaucracies, with their inherent problems of fraud and high administrative overhead. Medicare rules alone are 133,000 pages in length. The so-called private sector of American health care is better termed the regulated sector. To receive any government reimbursement they must play by the rules imposed by the bureaucracy. Insurance companies are burdened with thousands of state and federal mandates, regarding what services they must supply. HMOs are also heavily regulated and are in fact creations of the U.S. Congress by virtue of the HMO Act of 1973.
The new plan of The Left is to force 100 million people to give up their private health insurance—which they are overwhelmingly satisfied with—and lose the relationships they have established with their current doctors. Centralized governmental control has spawned dissatisfied patients, restricted access, huge numbers of uninsured, unacceptable medical mistakes, a lack of information technology, and upwardly spiraling costs. These issues are exacerbated by our growing reliance on the government to pay for services. Whenever an industry becomes mired in special-interest rules, deregulation is the answer. America has successfully deregulated trucking, airlines, the phone system, and power generation. In every case, dire predictions of chaos did not come true and the public benefited greatly.
Health care has been wrongly insulated from competition that brings about higher productivity and lower cost. The issue is not that health care should be different. In fact, when there is a commercial market in health care, prices react much as they do in any industry. The lesson of nearly four hundred years free market capitalism is clear. We should expect to get more choices of higher quality and falling prices. This is the opposite of the rationing mentality of some left-wing politicians and the scarcity mentality of too many bureaucrats.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Riveting read, James! However, the one stakeholder you barely mention is the insurance industry. As I see it, they are the villians in this debacle. It's not the medical providers. And it certainly ain't us consumers. I loved this sentence: "The essence of the problem is that the consumers (the patients) are not the buyers. They do not possess the financial leverage, which consumers have in almost every other sector of our economy, because they do not pay the bills." Bingo.
I believe it's something of a stretch to say universal healthcare will force 100 million people to give up their private health insurance "which they are overwhelmingly satisfied with." I know of very few people who would describe themselves as "overwhelmingly satisfied" with their health coverage.
I believe decent healthcare is not a privilege. It is a right. I don't believe it is specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution tho. Given that, there has to be some mandate (aka law) that requires all US citizens to have access to care. Should the US govt control that care? Probably not. Scratch that (love the idea of healtchare by Target,Walmart and Costco!).But everyone should have it. No one should be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. No one should have to pay more than 5% of their gross monthly earnings for the "privilege" of having health coverage.
I agree that the rationing mentality you mention in your last sentence is absolutely real. It's alive and well and being carried out daily by health insurers and HMOs. And I'm speaking from direct personal experience here!
Great hub. Enlightened and inspired. I am afraid we have already went to far towards socialism. My opinion.
God bless you good America. This is what I can say. When I lived in socialistic Europe we looked to America as example in medicine. Now we are looking to Europe with stupid socialistic system. Sorry I do not watch my words but it is truth. We are loosing doctors with alarming rate. Many my colleges are studying business and law on side in order to switch. MD are substituted by Physician assistants and practitioner nurses. In Soviet Union we called them "felchiars",
The coding system is enormous and if you do not know "the game", you will not do good and you might quit. I am talking to doctors and for doctors.
The government is spending 60% from each dollars perhaps now even more. You are right James bureaucracy reign. I have more to say but it is all for now. Thanks James for good article..
James I'm sorry but I have to put a few points forward here. As a British citizen I never feared any need for medical help it was always there. Here I paid a huge portion of my earnings to a medical insurer and the restrictions were many. I know many people who just don't have any insurance and fear ill health or an illness. A friend of mine with cancer died without trying chemotherapy because she didn't have any money to pay for it. I don't go to the doctor here unless I am forced to. In my humble opinion, something needs to be done. This is one of the greatest countries in the world but the scariest thing about living here is the fear of needing medical help. I self medicate for most small ailments but I dread having to visit a doctor.
That being said, great hub, well thought out arguments but there is a lot of dread of getting medical help because of the extreme cost of it in the USA. My college student son without medical insurance, broke his ankle. I had to pay his horrendous medical bills. That was several years back. Now I could not afford to pay for it.
Thinking out loud— Thank you for adding fine points to the conversation. They get you when you're coming and they get you when you're going. Clowns to the left of me; Jokers to the right; Here I am; Stuck in the middle with you!
Mighty Mom— According to J.D. Power 72% of insured Americans say they are satisfied with their health care insurance. Overwhelmingly might be too strong an adverb. I have been with Blue Cross, United Healthcare and now Aetna. The coverage I have received has been outstanding, and my employees were very happy with the plan we had (they paid half of the cost). That is the actual concept of insurance—spreading the risk of catastrophe.
The preexisting problem is one that needs to be changed. That is why I think we should get away from employer based insurance altogether and have each person buy their own insurance, just like they do their life insurance, car insurance, home insurance. This way, you keep it no matter where you work or if you work. It will be too expensive (mostly because of the paperwork involved) to have insurance pay every time you catch a cold to go in for a battery of tests. Insurance should be for disease and serious illness. The same way car insurance is not for oil changes but for accidents; and your home insurance is not for changing light bulbs or mowing the lawn but for fire and other serious damage. That is actually the true concept of insurance—to spread the risk of catastrophe.
Wbisbill— Thank you for your gracious comments.
Vladimir Uhri— Thank you for adding your words of wisdom from one who knows. I agree with everything you said and I appreciate you for your comments.
Gypsy Willow— Thank you for reading and your worthy commentary. I haven't lived in the UK so you certainly have an insider's view of that situation. The link I provided in the body of my article goes to a page with rows of links to articles from newspapers and magazines in Britain and Canada about the waiting lists and poor quality of helath care there, that looks quite alarming to me, but maybe it is sensationalized. You would know better.
One problem with the broken ankle is, why should they fix up his ankle for $200, when the government will pay them $2000? You can't compete with the unending cash flow of the Federal Treasury. If they were out of the game I believe fixing a broken ankle would become affordable again. But I could be wrong.
It's always a pleasure to have you visit and your comments are certainly meritorious.
As usual James, an excellent well-thought-out hub. The very idea that anyone would ever be allowed to make any health care decisions for me gives me nightmares. It is the ultimate loss of individual sovereignty.
I also think it's important to recognize that the monetary side of this debate is completely different and apart from a person's rights. They are two separate issues that, unfortunately, get lumped together.
The first and only question is- Is the government infringing on our right to choose for ourselves? If so, then it's a no-brainer. After we decide that, how to pay for it is secondary.
And what about people who need help and can't pay for it? Well, that takes more thinking then. But losing rights is not an option.
Great post!
Madame X— Thank you for the nice compliment. And you said it best: the ultimate loss of individual sovereignty! (I wish I had thought of that one!)
And I agree the money side probably is a different discussion than that of our rights as a free people. Your comments are always great and today's are no exception. Thanks!
Interesting read James. As someone who works for the National Health Service in the UK, in an admin role, I certainly have mixed feelings on health care and its funding.
Thought-provoking hub, as usual, James. I agree with more than not, but I have a few comments:
I am very tired of all the catch-words of division: Republican v Democrat, left v right, democracy v socialism, etc., etc. They are the representatives of anti-thought. One aspect of my objection is that this sort of dichotomizing falsely suggests that health care is a simple issue that only morons could miss the answer to. It may be simple to some on a conceptual level, but it is to no one who has had to deal with a significant medical dilemma. My second objection: catch-words are fine if all you're looking for is the cheers and back slaps of people who already agree with you. But if you are attempting to reach anyone else, know that your catch-words drive away people who might otherwise want to listen. Those catch-words reduce anyone with any disagreement with the labeler to idiocy before you've even heard what they have to say.
Few can defend the government's record (Obama or Reagan) when it comes to running things. Because I deal with cold and irrational lenders every day, even I could do more to bring the true culprits "to justice" than our government is doing. But where the government does a poor job of running things, it does a much better job in protecting us against the abuses of private interests. Any more-privatized health care system must have in place the means to sanction the greedy and undisciplined. (Who can deny that the private sector is capable of that in light of the events of the last year?) Remember that the Mexican cartels which are having a deep and negative effect on my part of the country represent the purest form of unregulated capitalism. The health care world and its insurers (as well as those who have attempted to defraud the system) must take responsibility for their general abuses and particularly their failure to put together an alternative and effective system (because there was no particular financial benefit to them). They do not get to have their cake and eat it, too.
I am aware of the seemingly systemic corruption in our society. I've watched "leftists" do all they can to avoid their taxes, and I've watched "Republicans" run stop signs endangering others. Our problem is across the board, and it is unfortunate that it is so easy for all to point to others as the cause. One aspect of this near-sightedness is the assumption of so many who have been favored to dehumanize those not in the same position. I have been in both. I am the product of a reasonably wealthy, hard-working, Republican family. I am no longer wealthy, but I am hard-working: I do not take weekends off and never have. Why? Because I support an extended family of 20 people. But I cannot get health care because I have a heart attack in my history. I have met all your standards: I work hard, share with others, protect my family, tell the truth, worship God, and spend each day trying to be a better person. Is my family less-deserving than yours when it comes to health care? Beware your generalizations.
ethel smith— whoops! I hope I didn't offend. As far as I know the NHS might be fantastic. Over here, we hear things but it's hard to confirm. I know that Theodore Dalrymple is not a big fan, if you know who he is. But you're right in it. How is it over there?
Steve Rensch— Point taken about my use of the term "The Left." When I used it I didn't think they would be offended because socialized medicine is their publicly stated goal—it is no secret. But you are probably right, it might be better to dispense with all that.
I agree with you that unfettered Capitalism can be a problem. But it is also well known that Fred Smith proposed his idea to the USPS and they said it was nonviable financially and that nobody would care about it. So we have FEDEX. Bureaucrats don't care about taxpayer's money. I heard Newt Gingrich say we that if we are going to keep Medicaid and Medicare, we should turn them over to Visa/Mastercard. Why? The two government programs admit they have a 15% fraud problem. The card companies have less than 1%. They card companies make a profit on a 3% fee. The bureaucracies overhead is about 7 times that, I think. It's an idea anyway. His point was, Visa would care about fraud because it cuts into their profits.
No, you and your family are very deserving and I am sorry to hear about your difficulty in obtaining coverage. That needs to be corrected. Maybe I said too much. I see a sustained drive to take our freedoms away; that's what bothers me. And I could care less what group of people want to take it; I want Liberty.
You have made an outstanding commentary and a needed reproof to my thesis. Thank you for your wise words.
An excellent read. Thank you so much for this article. Enlightening and informative.
Ellie Perry— Thank you for the complimentary comment and you are most welcome.
I may be able to dish it like you, but I doubt I take like you do. Thanks for listening.
James,
Thanks for the hub. It is very informative.
I had just finished a hub by Londongirl, who explained how the health care works in the UK. I do not see it working in the US as smoothly as it is in the UK. Health care is a 8% GDP for them for a approximatly 1.5 million people. LIke I said, I do not see it working here like that.
I am totally confused on the issue of health care. I do not want big brother involved.
I am so ticked off when we talked to the doctors offices and they have two different prices. On Doctor had a $200 cost if using insurance, and only a $80 cost if we did not use insurance. What the crap? They are over changing insurances so bad. I about told the Doctor off and call them crooks.
Keep on Hubbing!
Well....very interesting read, James. I loved all the comments, too. People have so much to share on this issue. I think what also causes the cost of healthcare to be so high is the insurance mandated upon the healthcare providers, too.
My personal experience is while I was insured, my dentist made sure there was work to be done on my teeth! And my co-pay was high! After they did EVERY tooth in my mouth (to the tune of $3,000 plus), they then stated my little girl had six new cavities starting between her teeth! I took her for a second opinion, and she had no cavities! What an absolute crook! Shame!
Secondly, I worked for a company that became crooked, and though I addressed the issues with them, they let me go. I couldn't get personal health coverage because #1 I was unemployed and #2 I had a pre-existing melanoma removed from my leg. I feel that employers that blatantly mistreat and fire employees should have the consequence of paying a portion of the COBRA insurance the unemployed otherwise can't afford! Obama did just that, effective March 1, 2009.
I've written a hub about being unemployed and not able to afford COBRA. I still don't have health insurance, but my daughter will qualify for Healthy Families ~ that's been a four-month process thus far, and she's still not approved because they keep needing paperwork already sent with a 15-day additional waiting period. It's been a nightmare! Incredible!
One last thought, I don't know about Costco, but I know WalMart and Target are spirutally based. We can't serve both God and money. The Bible says so. The god of this world is money and corruption, in my opinion. When you used the word Leviathan, I knew exactly what you were talking about!
Steve Rensch— You put a real human face on a problem that can be reduced to abstract theory by some and that needed to be done. I thank you.
eovery— They certainly do overcharge the insurance companies. Nail the big corporation! They feel a lot differently about it if YOU are paying them. Of course they do. YOU are a actual, sick person standing in front of them. I read the other day that a hospital bed purchased for $1300 is charged out to us at $300 a day to use it. That's quite a return on investment there.
Thank you for your fine comments.
Carrie Bradshaw— Thank you visiting me! I understand what you are saying. I am sorry you are having a tough time getting coverage. I think health insurance policies should have zero to do with our employers. We should buy it the way we buy all of our other insurance. Then, employers will be able to pay much higher salaries because health insurance benefits are a big part of their overhead and it will eliminate all that paperwork employers must do to manage the policy. Then you can keep your insurance your whole life, melanoma or no. I have been with one car insurance company for years while working for several employers. It should be personal and go with you regardless of where you work.
If the goverment programs went away, we could have the money spent on them instead.
In the New Yorker article, Medicaid was paying $15,000 per person living in McAllen, Texas. That is not per sick person—that is per capita for the 700,000 people living in the metropolitan area. Why not just give them the $15,000 in cash?—fire the entire bureaucracy—and let them pay cash for doctor visits and buy catastrophic health insurance, which you can buy a lot of with that kind of jingle in your pocket.
Wow! That was one bad dentist!
I appreciate your wise counsel.
Yes, I agree with you that if employers didn't have to pay so much, they could pay higher salaries. Then, we also could deduct our premiums on our taxes, too! Anymore, I have to not only find out the salary I will make, but how much of the premium I have to cover. The salaries seem to have dropped, while the co-pay for premiums through the employer is on the rise! BAD scenerio!
Carrie Bradshaw— I know exactly what you mean. My company failed four months ago after 14 years. Quite a shock. The times we are in right now it's easy to panic. I hate to make the equation, but that is exactly how the Germans went for Hitler—times were so tough they were ready to vote for ANYBODY who gave them hope—and change. :D
But during normal times, when most of us are doing OK; I think it is the government that makes health care so darn expensive and I think if we started over tomorrow with no government involvement, and no employer based insurance; I think doctors, hospitals, patients, and insurance companies could sort this all out like we do most other things. But: that's just me! :D
Obviously, there is a huge demand for health care. Any demand in America is met with supply.
I really think you're right about this. These corrupt systems are actually not at the top. They're in the middle. What I mean by this is we "little people" need to get on our knees and PRAY. The "MOST HIGH" IS the TOP and has the power to make things happen. You've planted the seed; we just need to get the idea to GROW and get PEOPLE involved. I'm with you, and if you ever know of a way people can support a movement of change, let me know and I'll do everything I can!
Carrie Bradshaw— AH!!! Now you're talking. Getting on our knees is always right. And I think for us to pray that our national health care problem gets healed is altogether appropriate. That's an angle I hadn't covered. Thank you for adding a spiritual aspect to the discussion.
Health care is a touchy subject for many. I myself pay lots for a policy since I am self-employed. And I know health care costs are only going up as more and more do not cover their own costs so it gets passed along to those that do pay.
Erick Smart— I think it's a touchy subject for most people right now. I am paying for my own right now, too. I hope it will get fixed in a way that brings more choices and lower prices for everybody.
" A power that, sooner or later, will be wielded in accordance with one's political views. And this power will surely be used to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will—or quit the medical field."
I think you are worrying unnecessarily. We have had the NHS in the UK for longer than most British Citizens have been alive - since 1948. My parents, aged 60 and 61, were born after it started. There is no relevance to treatment of one's political views, my GP doesn't know and couldn't care less for whom I vote! We have secret ballots, anyway.
And doctors and nurses in the NHS don't have to be involved with abortion, either, if they don't want to be.
"Health Care represents 17 per cent of our entire economy. Don't brush past that sentence lightly."
That's part of the problem. America spends twice the proportion of GDP on health care as we do in the UK - and we are healthier here. Lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher healthy life expectancy. That must indicate massive inefficiency.
"I had just finished a hub by Londongirl, who explained how the health care works in the UK. I do not see it working in the US as smoothly as it is in the UK. Health care is a 8% GDP for them for a approximatly 1.5 million people."
1.5 million people work for the NHS - but the British population is more like 60 million people.
"That's part of the problem. America spends twice the proportion of GDP on health care as we do in the UK - and we are healthier here. Lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher healthy life expectancy. That must indicate massive inefficiency."
This is absolute baloney!!! Where did you get these numbers might I ask?
These numbers are highly suspect and might come from groups that are pro socialized medicine.
The words that I get from my friends and others that live in GB and Canada is that NHS is like Kaiser Permente on downers. It takes for ever to get a treatment once you can get in for diagnosis. Even the British Television shows make fun of the NHS.
I have heard that it takes around two years to get a knee replacement or hip replacement.
On the Canadian NHS, a friend of mine married a Canadian Citizen and they moved to New London , Canada. They had to hire an attorney so that she could partake of the Canadian benefits. Now they are both going back to the United States because the Canadian Health System will kill them by not treating them in a timely or even competent manner.
It seems to me that until you really use the medical insurance, whether private or public, you really don't know its quality of service. I suspect that LG and others have no personal experience with the system.
The current US paid for Health Insurance system is a disaster and yet it would look good compared to having it nationalized. In essence, the health insurance companies practice medicine without a license. They with-hold test and procedures of their insurers. That should be the responsibility of the doctor and not the insurance company.
The problems of the US healthcare is rooted in the government giving power to the FDA, drug companies, health insurance companies and allowing free medical services to illegal aliens, and medicare, just to name a few.
For example, we have not had any major medical cures since the Polio Vaccine in 1955. Drug companies don't strive for finding cures, they strive for finding lifelong treatments.
FDA approved drugs are not much safer that drugs given out in say Mexico. These approved drugs have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people over time. The explosion of medical specialists has caused more problems with patients than it has helped. The reason for that is no one really cares about the whole person, the person is really just a multitude of billable parts. As soon as a billing item is detected, the real medical diagnosis is stopped. Then it is just treatment and billing until the patient recovers, hits another major billing issue or dies.
Hospitals harbor some of the worlds most dangerous and lethal bacteria. Going to a hospital with one malady only to develop another hospital born malady is another healthcare problem.
My point is that the current non NHS is already bad enough, but it would be much worse run directly by the government.
James – another outstanding hub that invites lengthy conversation. Wonderful job, great points. You were right, very controversial. I am deeply moved and thus, I speak:
I agree whole-heartedly that the government should not have gotten involved. Much has changed since the 50s though.
The New Yorker blames the greedy doctors, you blame the greedy government, LMom blames the greedy insurance companies, and if I were to point a finger, I would blame the greedy attorneys, the majority of who are in the U.S. seeking malpractice suits primarily if they can create a loophole yielding a phenomenal pay-out. The next person could come along and blame the greedy pharmaceutical companies whose lobbyists are about as powerful as those of the insurance industry (which Opinion Duck just did during our storm).
We can go around endlessly in the same vicious circle with potential solutions if we continue to focus merely on the symptoms rather than the cause. As an example, I will decry WalMart that started with Sam establishing a foundation on “American made products”, mushrooming with the influence of mass buying power and lauded for the tremendous number of Americans they employed. Sam died and the greedy children took over using their inherited buying power to screw American suppliers by refusing any non-consignment orders even for produce so the suppliers/farmers have to eat the loss. They also now buy the cheapest possible products available globally and utilize the “loophole” of employing at barely less than “full time” so they have to neither pay a decent wage nor offer any benefits.
We saw the global economy topple like dominos as the greedy American financiers sailed away on their multi-million dollar yachts, having first extricated their multi-billions into offshore/Swiss, tax free accounts.
I could go on, giving detailed facts for each intricately intertwined “symptom”, including but not limited to the crumbling Canadian healthcare system because most qualified practitioners began feeling it was unfair to earn a mere reasonable living when a loophole to secure U.S. citizenship could yield them multi-million dollar incomes.
The incompetent Chrysler execs greedily took our money with one hand and exorbitant ‘paychecks’ with the other, singing the same tune: “We refuse to let the government limit our income! This is Marxism – be on our side people, you could be next!”
I agree with you in that the answer is not to give more power to our government. No private industry would survive with their ridiculous laws of not being able to fire incompetent employees. Venezuela tried and look at their state of affairs! However, I disagree that any amount of analyzing, blaming, or changing mere symptoms will lead to a solution. If we look at the bigger picture to find that common destructive thread woven through each individual, industry and aspect of the problem we can see the actual cause - greed. Unfortunately, as deeply as this cause has infected our entire society and system, I believe our only hope for healing is the implementation of restrictive laws – intentionally excluding loopholes.
" I suspect that LG and others have no personal experience with the system."
Your suspicions are entirely wrong. I was born in an NHS District General Hospital, have been registered with an NHS GP since I was born, and had my own son in an NHS hospital in London nearly 4 years ago.
"This is absolute baloney!!! Where did you get these numbers might I ask?
These numbers are highly suspect and might come from groups that are pro socialized medicine."
Which numbers? The % of GDP? You came up with the horrifying 17% USA figure yourself.
Figures for life expectancy, and infant mortality, come from "The World in Figures 2009" published by The Economist, a right-wing, free-market publication which uses countries' own statistics where they are reliable.
Infant mortality - the UK is in 20th place in the world, the USA doesn't make the top 30. Overall life expectancy - 79.5 in the UK, 78.2 in the USA.
40 countries have a higher life expectancy that the USA, including Cuba, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica and Chile.
LondonGirl— You are right. There is massive inefficiency and fraud going on here. I see you have Hubs on the system over there. I haven't read them yet, but I am eager to do so, to get an insider's view.
"I think you are worrying unnecessarily"
I hope so. But not long ago Catholic Adoption Services began closing down after helping place thousands of unfortunate orphans because the current administration forced them to adopt to gays—in direct violation of their religion. And there is a lot of chatter now that Catholic hospitals are next. That they will forced to participate in abortions or lose the ability to accept Medicaid and Medicare. But, if you are correct, it is much ado about nothing.
Regarding political views, this power is being wielded now by our government as they decide who gets home mortgage relief and what car dealerships close. These decisions are made in secret by "czars" appointed by the President and not accountable to Congress—and therefore to the People. They already, early on, smell of political favoritism.
Thank you for your fine comments and for coming by to read my Hub.
LondonGirl—I thought that 1.5 looked on the low side. :D
James I hope you have a family and their all well. I do and I have health insurance. It does a good job of offsetting the cost but its still real expensive and we have consider all options.If I didn't have it and I had sick kid that needed help I would overwelmed with fear. If I became Ill and no insurance and the treatment would financially ruin us I wouldn't let them treat me. National Health may not be the answer but this doesn't work. Have you seen the new hospitals and medical facillities being built? C'mon! We have to get a handle on this!
Justin Martyr— LondonGirl is correct that the life expectancy is 2 months higher in the UK. If I may put this delicately . . . they have a more homogenized society. Not to mention, the best predictor of poor health is obesity and I believe America is the most obese nation on earth. So, while technically correct, I don't think the health system has much credit to latch onto with this point.
I appreciate you for taking the time to read my Hub and leave your comments. Nice zeal too! :-)
"LondonGirl is correct that the life expectancy is 2 months higher in the UK. If I may put this delicately . . . they have a more homogenized society. Not to mention, the best predictor of poor health is obesity and I believe America is the most obese nation on earth. So, while technically correct, I don't think the health system has much credit to latch onto with this point. "
It's a year and two months, 14 months, not 2 months difference.
Also, and I could direct you to another of my hubs on this subject were I not modest and self-deprecating (ed. What?!), America is only the 4th fattest country in the world, beaten by more obese places (-:
Opinion Duck—I, too, have heard many horror stories but the several folks who live in the UK have all roundly defended their system so, they should know better than anybody how it is. Europe, of course, is much more conditioned to accept socialism of all types compared to the US. It strikes me as Anti-American, which come to think of it, much of western Europe is, too. I provided a link in the heart of my Hub to dozens of articles from the UK and Canada about the waiting lists and rationing of health care that goes on there.
I know people personally who are Canadians, that are very dissatisfied and come to the US for treatment. But, I heard from one lady, that she goes TO Canada for treatment.
You made many powerful and true statements in your comprehensive commentary. I will say the infection rate in our hospitals is bad. And the hospital errors are huge—181,000 serious errors last year. Again, though, the government programs will pay them again and again to fix their "comebacks"; unlike any other business where warranty work costs the supplier, thereby reducing comebacks.
And, you are right on again that the government payment system makes it unprofitable to be a General Practitioner, and therefore their numbers are dwindling. Only specialists make big money because that is what the government has decided—not the people. That is what is most un-American about this bureaucratic approach. They make 100,000 laws (regulations) that are never voted on by our representatives in Congress. That ain't how it is supposed to be in the USA. This was put into place gradually by "progressives" who, in their own literature, say they must implement through bureaucracy what would never be accepted by a free Republic and its free citizenry.
Your knowledge and comments are awesome. I am so glad you visited.
SEM Pro— Thank you for reading my Hub, your kind opening words, and for joining the conversation.
You are so right about the malpractice problem. Unless intentional mistreatment is involved, I would abolish it. Pharmaceutical companies . . . I am ambivalent about them. I know pills are pushed way too much by the doctors. I know many like to point out the cost per pill looks really low but they always leave out the millions in Research & Development invested before a drug can come to market.
I fully agree with you that Greed is a full-blown pandemic here. But it is a lot harder to be greedy without a third party paying the bills. In a free market, two hospitals can setup across the street from each other and I can shop prices before deciding where I spend my money—and they have to react accordingly. Fixing prices is against the principles of Adam Smith, one of the key founders of what used to be our free market economy. Most people have no idea how much they are spending on medical care—they never see the bills, except for their co-pays.
But you are right: the blame game has played out. Solutions are required. My solution is a totally free market system.
Walmart? My jury is out on that one. I can see harm they have done to American suppliers. I can see products being made available to the masses as never before. That may take a different Hub! :D
Your comments are not only wise they are deep. Thank you for making them.
LondonGirl—I cannot refute your numbers. Unfortunately, there are serious social and cultural problems over here directly related to these numbers and irrelevant to the quality of health care itself.
LondonGirl—It sounds as if you are sold on your system over there and I am glad it is working well. I wish everyone good health. The health care here is outstanding as well but it just costs the country too much and with the baby boomers retiring the future obligations are enormous and virtually unfundable.
Thank you for setting us straight on the UK setup. I love the UK. That's our mother country you know. :D
Your comments are excellent and I appreciate you posting them here.
sneakorocksolid— I appreciate your personal situation. Thank you for sharing your feelings on the subject. Something has to be done, for sure. I am in favor getting the government out of the picture; eliminating health inurance by employers; making the purchase of health insurance a national thing—as I mentioned, something you can buy and take with you no matter where you work or where you move (from GEICO, or State Farm, or Nationwide, et al.). I truly believe the free market system works. But that is far from what we have. To go the other way; to give politicians and bureaucrats control over our bodies and our children's bodies—is an incredible loss of Liberty and the thought of it makes me want to read Aldous Huxley again.
I do not expect everybody to agree. But at least we are talking about it and learning from each other. Thanks for visiting.
LondonGirl— I am looking at 78.7 versus 78.06 on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_
You may have more accurate data; that was the easiest thing to find quickly.
I will read your health care hubs. I have them bookmarked. I've been trying to catch up on my comments first.
There are 4 fatter countries? uh oh! I am looking this up . . . I see a chart with the US ninth fattest! But all the others are like, the Cook Islands—hardly anybody there!
You have done your homework, that's for sure. Thanks again for bringing some concreteness to the abstraction.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Obesity-epidemic--the-ten- - major countries only, and the USA is 4th
This chart is amazing. When I see photos of people from the Middle East, they rarely look fat to me. hmmm . . . I need to reassess. And why is Mexico in there? I mean, I always hear that they are sneaking across the border because they are poverty stricken. In my mind's eye, I tend to equate people who are starving with skinny folks. But most of the fat here are the poor, not the rich. Most of the rich and middle class work out and look great. Confusing. Must be all that corn syrup in their diet. Thanks for the info. I'm going to read you HUbs today. Promise.
James, just corresponding with the comments on this hub must be keeping you busy! As you know, I've written on this subject myself here on HubPages, and it's certainly a hot topic for debate.
Being from the UK, i can only say how absolutely relieved I am not to be dealing with the tortuous health-care issues that so many Americans have raised here on HubPages. I think that Mighty Mom hit the nail on the head when she placed the Insurance Companies at the heart of the matter. Even if the USA were to dismantle the link between employers and healthcare insurance, there would still be a huge raft of people unable to get insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions etc.
One of the earlier comments mentioned the case of a cancer patient who could not afford care, and went without. That's shameful in a modern society.
Amanda Severn— That is shameful. I have never heard of such a thing from anyone I actually know—and I know plenty of poor people. The poor people I know are given the best medical treatment in the world regardless of ability to pay. The hospital just takes it on the chin. I live a few blocks from one of the finer hospitals, Florida Hospital, and have a friend on the board. They turn no one away who needs help. So when I hear these tragic stories, I don't understand them.
In my POV it is not an insurance company problem. Anything I can think of in the States is better provided, with less waste and fraud, by a for-profit entity than a bureaucracy. Which makes perfect sense philosophically. The problem is insurance is bound to states—ironic, because states are ignored in most things by the Feds; and that insurance is not portable if you leave your employer. There is no problem here with any other kind of insurance because all other kinds the insurance companies compete nationwide with each other for the customers and have far less overhead from cumbersome regulatory paperwork requirements.
Thank you for your fine comments. I had no idea people were so happy with the NHS over there. That is not what we hear here. It could be that on both sides of the pond only the horror stories make it through. There may be people here who don't THINK they can go to the hospital without money. If so, they are mistaken.
I think you are right, James, in that the horror stories are the ones that make the media. After all, "women has minor operation on foot, all goes well" isn't very exciting as a headline!
HA! HA! I guess not! That's funny. Thanks. Lord knows, we need a laugh around here.
Yea, "Doctor saws off wrong foot" gets a lot more press.
Hey James thanks for your comments you're obviously a kind and thoughtful person. I don't disagree with you or anybody else we have to be open to a creative idea that would best suit our nation. We are a very smart and inovative country we can figure this out, I know we can.
sneakorocksolid— You are welcome. I appreciate your gracious compliments. Thank you.
Well written and thoughtful analysis.
So of course I disargree. Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than private insurance in terms of overhead. Secondly, nobody is talking about socialized medicine. Nobody is going to force everyone into medicare and medicaid. The plan simply calls for a choice. Private Insurance will still have a say.
I refer you to articles written by Londongirl on how the British Healthcare system works. It is a first hand account. Doesn't say it is perfect, but it works. Obama does not want to go that far.
I pay for private insurance. My premiums are outrageous, as are the co-pays. And the fact of the matter is I am not getting what I am paying for. If it were a meal I would send it back.
There is a middle ground. Obama is pushing a moderate approach. The liberals will try to pull him left(er). The Republcans will just say no. The system is broken, even if you are insured. What is the alternative? Where is the conservative plan to fix the system?
But as I said, well written article and a lively debate. Sure to be more to come (especially when I finish my pinko commie healthcare article in a few days)
Great job.
bgpappa— Don't go pinko commie on me now! :D
I appreciate the visit and the compliment. I can't wait to see your Hub on the topic. We'll see what happens. I think any commodity works best with a free market, but that's just me . . . and Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) . . . and Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) . . . and Milton Friedman (A Monetary History of the United States). It could be that BHO is smarter than these fellers, but I wouldn't bet on it.
In the end, I'll have no say. But I do like talking about it because I am concerned about the loss of Liberty. Thank you for piling on—er, I'm sorry, I meant chiming in! :D
Trust me, I am a liberal, not a communist, but do believe that government should regulate some things. Healthcare is one of them. Trust me, Obama does not want to nationalize the healthcare system. I do.
But I am also a realist. I too believe in the market, but believe in reasonable regulation. Deregulation has failed in many sectors of the economy. I understand the argument that the free market should govern all, but unchecked it has horrible consequences that are usually paid by the taxpayer in the end.
As always, enjoy an articulate debate where both sides bring something to the table. Just wish the folks on Washington on both sides would do the same.
So true bgpappa! As an entrepreneur, my enthusiasm for free market is much greater than any resemblance to socialism but the system is indeed broken. All the wishing it were different or an idealistic approach to what it should be won't get us from where we are, to where we need to go and eventually be.
Right now, I'd simply LOVE to have even close to the same coverage as the multitude of "public servants" get for free. Unfortunately, they are the ones who haven't a clue what it's like to be without - despite the statistics that over 50% of the current foreclosures are due to catastrophic health care costs (not having signed a mortgage dreamily unaware). Another unfortunate aspect is that the lobbyists for all parties, and the political pockets they fill who will ultimately determine the outcome, are also broken. I too look forward to your upcoming article.
bgpappa— I agree with you that some regulation is required. I am not sure 133,000 pages might not be a bit of overkill. I think the deregulation of many industries has been very beneficial. I site a few examples above. In what "many" industry has deregulation failed? What were the horrible consequences suffered by Americans because of free market capitalism?
Thank you for your comments. You are a clear thinker and you articulate your thoughts well. Always welcome here.
SEM Pro— So, we meet again! This 50% of foreclosures due to medical bills is something new to me. From whence does that information come? JC
I appreciate your readership and commentary. Maybe bgpappa can sort it out for us. :)
Well now, that might take some serious research because it was a figure quoted on CSpan about 8/9 months ago as they grueled the economists. If I weren't heading out of town, I'd go the extra mile to answer that but...
I haven't meant to be offensive as adamently as I feel about the whole darn thing being a mess. I think if we discuss enough, we might just be inspired enough to make a difference, or clear enough to express ourselves with an organization of folks who are. My only point is that the politicians seem to be trying to decide what bandaid to put on this gaping wound, and I'd rather we tackle the source with serious surgical precision - somehow.
I keep "speaking" here because your thoughts are so well laid out James(and no I won't make the same subliminal slip *wink*) and the ones I've been espousing for decades. But, how do we get from where we are - back to those cherished free market values? I simply don't think bandaids on the syptoms will help at this juncture.
SEM Pro— You have not been the least bit offensive. Your comments are passionate and that alone qualifies them for a fair hearing. But your comments are sharp; and that is good. I don't like the bandaid approach either. I think surgery is required. Where is Marcus Welby MD when you need him?
He decided to get out in the 60s at the first sign of government intervention LOL
HA! I imagine so! No more house calls for you!
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-ba
"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60% of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50% in a six-year period, from 46% in 2001 to 62% in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine."
LondonGirl— That is amazing! Thank you for researching this. I had no idea this might be the case. hmmm . . .
I love you LondonGirl - thank you! I knew it was a shocking figure I'd have to get amnesia to forget but when I can't quote the source right off the bat, I tend to be conservative. Appreciate the post!
Added fuel for how broken it is right James!? With all said, you may understand why it's worth being able to tap the Canadian system as a citizen. Even with US insurance, catastrophes can and are wiping peoples' lifetime retirement plans, homes etc. That's also added fuel for your logic that if it was kept just for such catastrophic necessities, as with other insurances, this wouldn't be happening.
Considering all the procedures they're capable of doing these days, the question of "where would the line be for that" comes into play. Bottom line: I tremendously respect your understanding of how healthcare is indeed diminishing our liberty. Most who have insurance, don't piece together how much their own costs are rising with the additional services health facilities have to provide to those without insurance. This, to a degree explains why it costs so much more if one doesn't have ins. because there's no point suing trying to get blood from a stone. The facilities would love everyone who doesn't have it to simply go elsewhere. With their lobbying clout, they will soon be sure to create a law that no longer allows the requirement of serving non-insurers - rather than the simple laws they've implemented to make sure they don't have to insure anyone who might cost them (pre-existing).
The way it's now heading, the rich will be covered even to replace such vital organs as their heart etc. and the poor will die from unavoidable catastrophes or continue to join the multitude of homeless. With millions homeless, everyone's liberty of life is at stake - as is becoming very evident here in ATL. Broken indeed...
Millions homeless?
Looking for the exact figure and irrefutable source again? Thought my credibility was no longer in question having been rescued by LondonGirl LOL
Yes, here in Atl our current "American Status" seems to be in full force. Being a large city in the south, naturally it had its share of homeless and less than affluent population. Katrina hit and it felt like everyone who had nothing left, headed here (as did the majority of developers). Then the economy weakened, more headed to "the big city". The abundant population of already "hard hit" and desperate grew. Mismanagement of the city's funds became public info. as fire departments and police stations had to cut back or close. The main hospital was also in such serious dept...a county's education accreditation was taken away...the 6,000 sq ft houses all the developers built lie like ghost towns...
I might need to write an actual hub detailing the specifics with links. Suffice-it-to-say, 6 months ago when statistics started cropping up "500,000 more lost their jobs this month" etc., the consequences became equally apparent. Unless in a mall, might as well close up shop because they'd be broken into every night - not for cash, but for T-shirts and running shoes (or anything else that could be used or sold). Daily reports of what heightened stress creates with family members killing each other, mothers being set on fire...
Again, let me consider putting it altogether in a hub when I return but for the purposes of your subject matter here, of those who have been counted (which normally actually excludes the homeless)
Approximately 1.6 million Georgians don't have health insurance today. More than one in three Georgians (2.9 million) were without health insurance for all or part of the two year period from 2007-2008. 42.2% of African-Americans and 66.2% of Latinos in Georgia were uninsured for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008. Over 95% of adult Georgians without health insurance were either employed or actively looking for work. 78.7% were working full or part time...
And on and on... Don't know if an accurate figure is possible for how many are homeless - most hide like rats until the middle of the night and sorry James, as much hub material as it would provide, I'm not heading out nightly for a month to find and count them - I probably wouldn't be alive to complete the hub. Desperation can bring out the worse... "Millions homeless" - undoubtedly. Anyone around LA care to chime in?
Why, SEM Pro, far be it from me to question your credibility. I just wanted to see the evidence in its own context. I did not doubt you for a second. :D
I think we have oversold the American Dream. It just can't happen for 300 million people. And if it does, each one of them will have to have the personal intitiative to develop something the world needs. I am not unempathetic. I know a lot of poor people. I have a second cousin, who the last time I saw her, all 250 pounds of her, she was bragging to me how she was going to get SSI for life because one leg is shorter than the other. She is 23 and plans a life of never working.
But I have traveled and I can tell you that if a 250 pound American with air conditioning, refrigeration, indoor plumbing, a city sewer system, a telephone, a computer, an internet connection, a car, a DVD player, a TV, electricity itself for goodness sakes—were to tell a really poor person . . . let's say one about 80 pounds of skin on bones living on the street in Calcutta in cardboard box trying desperately to catch a rat for dinner; as maybe one million human beings do in that city today—they would not only laugh, they would probably be damned angry. There is no poverty here in the real context of the world we live in.
That's all I'm going to say about that. :)
I share many of your concerns. On the other hand, I don't feel much better about leaving my healthcare in the hands of private insurance companies. They are a non-value added deal. They employ untold numbers of employees and other costs, yet do absolutely nothing to provide or improve healthcare. They have no concern for our welfare, and we have no recourse. They take our money and dole it out based on their whim. We don't even have the ability to boot them from office. Private insurance has also increased red tape and costs, we are now far too dependent upon them. I agree that unnecessary testing and procedures need to go away and providers need to be responsible. No doubt. On the other hand I'm not sure I want to incentivize providers based primarily on cutting back on care. This sometimes happens with disaster as the result. I'm not disagreeing with you really, just stating that the current system (even outside of Medicare/Medicaid) really STINKS. Some providers don't have our best interests at heart and I believe absolutely NO insurer does. How to fix a broken system with an unnecessary, costly, and now very wealthy and powerful third party inserted/entrenched into it, is quite the dilema. I guess really I'm playing devils advocate a bit...who do I trust more, an elected official or a greedy private third party? I think one is simply more familiar to us but not better, cheaper, or anything else.
mulberry1— Wow! This is a dynamite commentary. I thank you for the fine contribution to the thread here. I am not fan of the insurance companies, either. What I propose is that for routine health care; checkups, Johnny has a fever; Suzy has a skin rash; Billy has the crabs—that we see a clinic and pay them in cash. And insurance is still there but on the model of home or car insurance. I rarely hear anybody complaining about their car insurance or their homeowners policy. Because it works! And why it works is that it applies insurance in its natural setting, which is: spreading the risk of catastrophe amongst the greatest number. Our health insurance would only be for a wreck or a fire. A serious injury or disease. Not to use "insurance" for a checkup. Some would immediately say, how could people afford it? Getting rid of the middle man for most health problems saves money and gives us a closer relationship with our medical providers. The cost of insurance goes way down.
If 72% of Americans with insurance are satisfied with their coverage, I would ask: Have those people had serious illnesses which gave them the opportunity to experience how "good" their coverage actually is? It's when people get sick that they realize how good or bad their insurance plans are. I refer you to the recent study that concluded that over 50% of bankruptcies are the result of illnesses - and many of those people had insurance.
And what are the stats for how seniors feel about Medicare? I work mainly with Medicare Supplements, Part D and Medicare Advantage and I think most seniors are happy with Medicare.
Your take on the New Yorker article is amazingly different from mine. I thought the most important point of that article was that health care is a for-profit business and doctors are in business to make money - as are corporations that run hospitals and labs offering expensive tests. As a result, many doctors take advantage of the Medicare "fee-for-service" system and make money off of low-income patients who may or may not need the excessive amount of tests and medical treatments the doctors order.
The private Medicare plans (Medicare Advantage) were supposed to control costs through HMOs, but under Bush, they expanded into "private-fee-for-service" which resulted in Medicare paying out 12% more per person in private plans than those under "Original Medicare". This defeated the original purpose of privatizing Medicare - to save money.
Scaring people with cries of "socialized medicine" and "rationing" is a cruel joke. Private insurance companies require people to use doctors in their contracted networks and they do decide who gets care and who doesn't. At the same time they make millions - no, billions of dollars in profits and the current system is a burden for American companies as well as the American government.
I'll answer this one tomorrow when I'm sober. But your commentary is thought provoking and deserves an intelligent response. I agree with most of what you say—but maybe not for why you are saying it. The individual circumstances are rough and tough. I am looking at the macro, as in—how did it get to be this way in the first place? Paying for procedures instead of OUTCOMES?
To me, there the rub lies.
WOW! Awesome hub. I love your example of 'Johnny'- that's exactly how I view it. Government control, expecially over the healthcare system, is dangerous. I am fine with my insurance, but I am frustrated that I pay for health insurance while people I know are working the system and getting care for free. In essence, I am paying for their care as well.
My bill for having a baby was about $5,000 out of my pocket, but my friend had hers for free because she didn't have insurance- she could have opted for it on her husband's workplace coverage, but she didn't want to if she could get it for free. What irritated me the most was she got first class service and tons of freebies (including a $300 electric breast pump)aside from the 'free' baby, while I was given the bare minimum- no freebies. This example reflects your point about the 'Johnny' example. There are bugs in the current system for sure, but I believe people ARE reaching too far to the left for the solution.
Thanks again for a thought-provoking hub, which I will come back to read again after I locate the New Yorker article you mentioned.
Izzetl— Thank you for the compliment! And your commentary is exemplary! Not much I can add as you said it all, and so well. Thanks for visiting my Hub!
I have to say the picture at the end was really cute (what not to wear to the ER). With ups and downs in my life, I have had no insurance, had Medicaid, and had health insurance before AND after deductibles were met.
I almost was not able to get the surgery I had in November due to insurance reasons.
My children were approved for Medicaid last month, which would have covered a doctor visit I had paid for, but the doctor refused to refund my money and bill Medicaid, even though it would have helped me tremendously. He KNOWS I am living on my own with three kids!
My daughter had a major injury last year, and the insurance we had was catastrophic in coverage. This was a catastrophy, to be sure, but they gave us a hard time. Every time we would schedule something with a new doctor, the insurance company would not properly verify the coverage, and I would actually have to trick them by calling them myself on three way with the doctor's office staff listening in.
advisor4qb— It surely sounds as if you have had a rough time with the hodge podge system we have erected. I have talked to a lot of old timers and have never found anyone who had any of these problems in the 1950s. They knew a doctor; they paid him in cash if they were able; he helped them anyway if they couldn't pay. Government interference then came into play. At least, that is how it looks to me. I know it is hard to deal with insurance companies for health care. They are too involved in the process. I wish the best for you and your family. I am sorry you have had such a tough time. Hopefully, the system will change for the better. Thank you for reading and adding a concrete experience to the discussion that is sobering.
I thumbed you up because it's a well written and thoughtful piece and accurate in many ways, however I disagree strongly with your opinion. Private investors looking to make a profit decide health care now, the government, even if it were to be the deciding factor (and that's propaganda and simply not true) couldn't possibly do any worse.
Even Einstein wrote that the most efficient economic method for distributing scarce goods was socialism.
However, what Obama is proposing isn't that left wing nor is it intended to replace private insurance. The intent is to pick up the medical of those who cannot be insured in a capitalist society for "profit" and people will be given a choice, much like Canada. They can opt in or opt out and at different levels.
My opinion, our country is long overdue for this legislation.
Iðunn Thank you for your contrary contribution to the conversation. If Einstein said this, I assure you it was before Socialism was tried. Before it was tried, it sounded like a great idea. Hey, let's just take everything we've got and give everybody an equal piece of it! That is still a great sounding idea. We know now that it is contrary to human nature. The most successful experiments with it—Western Europe—are moribund economies with dying populations.
What great invention has come out Western Europe since they instituted socialism? It stifles incentive. Why do better? They'll just take the fruits of your labor away from you anyway. Why not work as little as possible? Daddy goverment will take care of you. The greatest experiments with these ideas—attenuated Marxism—has been the USSR and China. China was dead economically until the went away from socialism. The USSR, well unless you are into Potemkin Villages, I shouldn't have to comment on I hope.
But that's all I have room to say now. And you are entitled to your opinion. I like you. I think you are a nice lady with a good heart.
I like you too and I quite enjoy respectful debate. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I appreciate your respect for my right of opinion as well.
Frankly socialism works. I disagree that a more equitable distrubution of wealth quells incentive. People in social democracies are just as ambitious and most work and enjoy it. Look at any of the Scandanavian countries, Ireland, Germany, even France and U.K. though less so now for U.K. since "new labour" borrowed off the U.S. style capitalism and caved into their right.
Specifically to health care, we are not anywhere near the top ten. We have high poverty rates for a non third world country, high infant mortality and our overall mortality is lowering while our quality of life is also diminishing. In almost every area of decent, civilized countries measured for health care, we lag way behind.
Health care can't be left 'for profit'. People have intrinsic value. I'm not any kind of social darwinist. Do you agree or disagree that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' also includes healthcare because if people die from easily preventable illnesses for want of health care, I believe they are being deprived of their constitutional rights.
"We have high poverty rates for a non third world country, high infant mortality and our overall mortality is lowering while our quality of life is also diminishing."
This is easily explained by the difference in demographics. And I won't say anymore about that for fear of stepping on anybody's "self-esteem."
Europe is dying. No nation or civilization has ever, in human history, recovered from a birth rate as low as 1.3. Ireland has been a success precisely because of their embrace of capitalism; along with Eastern European nations.
"I disagree that a more equitable distribution of wealth quells incentive"
From 1917 to 1989 the two big nations tried this experiment: the US and the USSR. One was an incredible success the other a horrible failure. I would have hoped this experiment would have settled this debate. But, maybe not.
"Do you agree or disagree that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' also includes healthcare"
Of course not. They had doctors in 1789. If our Founding Fathers—the wisest group of men to ever appear on earth in the same place at the same time—thought so, they would have said so. They would have said, "and free health care for all." But of course, they didn't. They knew that if the government is to take care of you, one must surrender the very freedoms they fought for. If the government is going to take care of you from womb to tomb, they are in charge of your life. No, our Founding fathers were for Liberty and Freedom. Not for government domination of its citizens.
Lastly, I do not dispute we have a problem. The problem is the government, through Medicare and Medicaid screwed up the free market system; health insurance should be "insurance" for serious illness and accidents; it should not be tied to your employer; it should not be restricted state by state—you should be able to buy it from national insurance companies and these companies should not make decisions for us; sure they can send out an adjuster to ensure against fraud but that's all. All decisions should be between you and your doctor and based on outcomes not on how many tests and procedures they can dream up to try on you.
Do you have any problem with your car insurance? Finding it, buying it, getting your car repaired if you have a wreck? Who has problems with homeowners insurance? This is the proper use of insurance—spreading the risk of the unforeseen event that a single insured cannot cope with financially. It should not be for routine maintenance. That should be the responsibility of each sovereign person.
I think we both agree insurance is a huge part of the problem. I still think access to health care is implied. hehe. And Ireland, the new American principles based economy, was/is running into the same problem the recent U.K. changes led to, greater divide between the rich and the poor with all the profit going to the top 20% the next 20% holding steady and the bottom quintiles all losing ground.
However, that said, you've made some good arguments too on the problems with beaucratic control.
Quite stimulating, thanks for debating with me. Feel free to come fuss with me in my socialistic Hubs anytime. :D
Iðunn Maybe I will ;)
One last thing, about those quintiles. Rarely do people stay in them. They are fluid. People move up and people move down according to the decisions they make and their behaviors they choose—and luck. The bottom 20% includes only 3% who have been in there more than a few years. The top 20% changes every year. Fortunes change. Many, many people have gone from top 20 to bottom 20 and vice versa. There's rags to riches; and riches to rags.
social and economic mobility and opportunities are decreasing though. yes, there are also life cycles and those have great effect on people moving up and down in the quintiles from young earner to family member to retired, but this last 30 years or so, there has been a trend to less mobility with a sharp decrease over the Bush II years.
ok, I didn't stop. :p
sorry.
it is a great hub though, certainly leads to interesting conversation. :)
Had no idea when I started reading this that I would be here so long. Well argued counterpoints and this topic hits a nerve with everyone because health care (when needed) is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. Life and death at either end with everything in between...
I LOVE your suggestion of people paying for the minor stuff and only using insurance for serious things. This one idea alone would clear out the waiting rooms of hospitals and clinics as people would go back to treating the minor ailments as they did back in the 50's and earlier. Do people REALLY have to clog up emergency rooms when they have the sniffles?
A cap on amounts awarded in lawsuits for malpractice would go a LONG way towards helping. One reason now why so many tests are ordered is to rule out the possibility that every "i" was dotted and every "t" crossed just to prepare for a defense in case of lawsuits. The medical folks also have to pay those high malpractice premiums which we, the patients, subsidize by our payments along with insurance payments.
If the lawyers did not get big fat checks from the ridicously high award amounts, they also would not be so quick to encourage lawsuits.
Just tackling a small piece of this huge problem with this remark as you can tell.
Back in the 50's.......people did go to their family doctors for treatments and those doctors knew their patients for the most part as members of the community in which they lived. Payment may have been in cash, but also could have been in chickens or garden produce. The doctors became doctors because they cared to help people...not just make money.
Housecalls made them more familiar with the people under their care.
A family doctor that came to the house when my baby brother had pneumonia actually took turns in holding him upright in the steam filled kitchen.
Amazing considering how far our system has changed since insurance and HMOs have come into practice. Now if one gets 5 minutes with a doctor after waiting an hour or two in the waiting room...that's about it.
Have to go now but thanks for this great hub.
I want to understand how the Politics for healthcare work in the U.S ,but too late I was caught out. No Insurance ( no income) no proof of no income,so ineligible for a 'free health clinic".....( even though many of their customers were driving in with cadilacs and pretty well dressed. I had bused and walked 2miles)......to be told sorry you are not poor enough ....( or couldnt prove it)apparently if you have food stamps etc ,thats ok , you get free health care???
10 mins away ,pleased to be out of the hot midday sun, finally I was seen nearby hospital) and professionally diagnosed,x-rayed,consulted ,script and bill for $810.00!!!-total time incl waiting one hour???
Damn its circus time and I feel like a clown with asthma. My brother bragged ,hell girl ,would have cost you $25 back home,whats up with that ?
Actually Im going to send the bill to Pres.Obama, since I already paid hundreds for a physical to homeland security ,and he told us all that he was going to take care of me, yes he did. Thankyou for your hub , will take me 2 reads to digest. Hey best Insurance , the Govt new plan sounds good? ( I think)
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, per capita income has increased every year for the past 10 years, with an annual average of 5.2% gains for the past 4 years.
Another study in 2006, the US Income Mobility Study showed economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups INCREASED MORE than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.
The 2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000, had two income earners while those in the lower quintiles (2nd and middle quintile) had median of only one income earner per household. Household type is strongly correlated with household income. MARRIED COUPLES are disproportionately represented in the upper two quintiles, compared to the general population of households.
Not surprisingly the lowest income group was composed of those households headed by individuals younger than 24, followed by those headed by persons over the age of 75. [But this is only WAGES—many of those over 75 have savings, property, etc. and don't work; or work part time just for fun.]
The surest way to get into the lowest quintiles is out of wedlock children # 1 and divorce # 2. Not because of some bad Republican bogeyman somewhere. Jesus said, "What you reap you shall sow." We should not even think about guaranteeing OUTCOMES regardless of behavior. That will finish the job of ruining our country.
Peggy W— Thank you very much for reading and your excellent commentary.
I agree with you that the whole malpractice thing is way out of hand. That has increased the cost of health care more than anything else. I say, limit lawyer fees to 5% of the amount collected. And, no awards unless there was willful negligence. And you really hit home with your remarks about family doctors. Medicare and Medicaid set the prices—the insurance companies just follow suit. And the prices set only pay well for specialists. Therefore, the number of General Practitioners is plummeting. And that is a shame because your GP is the one who should actually know you and what he has seen you for before and so on and so forth. It is messed up, but not in the way that going commie will help. Health care will be rationed. The government will decide who lives and dies. And how did the government select which car dealerships to close??? By which ones gave the current administration contributions and which ones didn't. That is how your political affiliation will someday decide if you get that new liver or not. Damn, why don't people wake up!?
Eaglekiwi— What hospitals have to do, since they do not turn away anyone, and half the people don't pay them, is bill double to everybody, hoping what they collect from the half who do pay covers all the patients they treated.
Eaglekiwi— You are so funny! I didn't catch it the first time—I'm a little slow—what you said about Homeland Security had already given you a physical! ROFLMAO (I always wanted to use that one—now seems as good a time as any.)
I do not care for socialized medicine. I lived it in Europe. My relatives over there have to buy additional insurance to get better coverage. You have no choice on many health issues. My sister in law was denied a wanted specialist. She went privately and had to pay the bill by herself.The bureaucracy is enormous.
What we need is affordable insurance. The insurance companies are greedy and control the whole issue. Good luck Obama!
bernie1936— Thank you for providing the wisdom of experience. I appreciate your visit and comment. I am going to check out some of your Hubs. I liked your profile page.
I have to disagree with you on several accounts (though I am still a fan :) ). First of all, car and home owners insurance are big problems for many people. Haven't you ever heard of people paying for car insurance for years (and years), having two accidents within a short period (one may not even be their fault, but the other driver had none) and losing coverage? It happens all the time. How about your little brother who had insurance, got laid off, sold his car (so cancelled his insurance), then found a job, bought a new car a year later -- after taking the bus for a while. Guess what? He is now going to have to get 'high risk' insurance because he had a 'lapse' in coverage (and it doesn't matter if it is the same company or another). How about the way that auto coverage is tied to your credit score? There are so many problems with auto insurance that it deserves its own hub, obviously.
Homeowners insurance in Florida is a nightmare. I started out paying $700 a year in 1996 and was paying $3,400 a year when I sold my home last year -- in spite of the fact that no hurricanes had ever come through my town and done any sort of real damage. I stupidly filed an insurance claim for water damage in 2001 and got a check for $1,000. When my insurance company went under in 2005 (paying $1,300 at the time because I had voluntarily raised my coverage as my home value went up) I had to find a new company. That is when it went up to $3,200 (even more for the next year). Not only that, I couldn't get coverage for water damage anymore (over one $1,000 claim 6 years before)! Though my old insurance company 'went under' they soon came back and offered me new insurance for a hefty increase of approximately what I was paying with my new company. I knew then why they had 'gone under.' Making the insurance companies richer is not the answer.
You made a very valid point about insurance spreading the catastrophic costs around. I don't see why we can't do the same thing, only with, say, medicaid. When you think of all the people who don't have insurance because they can't afford the $800 a month for family coverage, just how much would it cost if we all had to pay something based on our incomes? We would all be putting money in the pot instead of just some of us. I personally have Tricare (military insurance), so I am grateful that I don't have to worry about myself, by the way.
As an employer, did you want to hire full time employees and pay their insurance or did you want part timers so you wouldn't have to? Haven't you noticed how so many companies work their people only 35 hours a week so they aren't 'full time?' Right now, as I see it, rich people and poor people have health insurance. Who does that leave with none? The hard working middle class are the ones who need it. The only silver lining is that if there is a catastrophic illness by the family provider, they will then get it because they are now poor (and homeless). None of that makes sense at all.
Talking about our founding fathers in conjunction with something that didn't even exist then doesn't make sense either. Back in 1776, though there were a few hospitals in existence, most people relied on home care from their country doctor (and didn't live long if they were really sick). There was no chemo, triple by-pass surgeries, transplants or expensive medications to buy. These are all modern issues that have to be dealt with differently. If our founding fathers had an inkling of the mess that would be modern medicine, I am sure that it would have been included.
Lastly, you bring up the fact about what would happen if Americans were asked to have vaccinations that they don't agree with and that it might be required under a new plan. Well, have you ever tried to get a child in school who WASN'T vaccinated? It is not happening because Americans are ALREADY required to be vaccinated. This includes pre-school and day care centers as well.
Though I agree that everyone would start running to the doctor for every sniffle unless checked, these issues do have answers and together, I believe that we could really come up with the right solution. Even if I personally came up with it, I doubt anyone would listen, but collectively, there is a solution and it is of course, a non-partisan one. This issue affects every American in some way. If rich, by paying more, if poor by getting less.
It sounds like you have a bit of money even if your company just went under (btw, sorry to hear that). Still, think of this scenario: You have a job making $400 a week (that is a lot more than minimum wage at $10 an hour). After taxes, of course, it is more like $340. Yet, your rent is $500 a month (not very good housing for that!) and your babysitter is $100 a week. That sure doesn't leave much left over for anything else. Yesterday, you developed a severe migraine and had to stay home from work. Thankfully, you have medicine on hand for that emergency, yet your employer (who doesn't provide health insurance and is not required to) insists on a doctor's note before you can come back. This kind of crap happens all the time. So guess what? You lose your job. People who work deserve health insurance in whatever way they can get it, yet the middle class is actually penalized for working. It doesn't make sense at all. I don't care if it is the left or the right who fixes it, just somebody, please fix it!
Connie Smith— I see your point about problems that do exist with auto and home insurance. I have heard of these difficulties and should have thought that through more clearly. (Of course, being a Floridian, my state is a special case after the hurricanes of 2004? nearly wiped out all the insurance companies—but most states don't have that problem. It is we who chose to live here in the path of hurricanes after all. Imagine insuring Pompeii!)
As an employer, I provided insurance for all of my 144 employees and their families, too, if they would pay 50% of the bill. At one time I paid 100% and only stopped because I found out quite a few of them (in aviation) already had military insurance; or had insurance through their spouses but heck as long as it was free everybody signed up. The 50-50 deal worked very well. in 14 years I never had a single disgruntled employee because of his insurance.
While our Founding Fathers were not clairvoyant, true, they knew from history that the world is always changing. The founding documents are designed for grownups to deal with life—not to have the government shelter them from it. They knew this: if the government is your daddy he is going to tell you what to do.
I don't have any money. Unless $80 qualifies as having a lot of money.
You are right in what you say and I agree with most of it. We do need a better system. Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I'll have to do some more thinking.
For 17 years I worked for a major Aerospace company. The employer paid for my insurance, over $200.00 a week as shown on my paycheck. I asked the employer not to pay for that insurance (Kaiser) because I was already insured through my wife's union employer (also Kaiser insurance). I was told that the premiums are a must because the more employees are covered the more the premiums get lowered. So Kaiser collected 2 premiums but used only my wife's for my coverage. BTW I never got any double Kaiser cards. This is similar of what James is saying about some of his employees were already covered. Last year my niece came to visit from Europe. She showed me her medical coverage card which is good in the whole European Union. I said WOW! She responded, not to bank on it. If your sickness is not life threatening, forget it unless you want to stay in line for a couple of days. There is no real solution for healthcare. The European system and the US system are broken. Last week I went to have a physical check up. I'm on medicare. I paid my $25.00 fee (Kaiser). While I was there 2 people walked in. One suffered from a cold and the other had some back pain. Both had no insurance and paid nothing. Both were treated for free. Is that right? My wife and I are on medicare. We both pay the required $2,313.60 Total ($96.40 a month) plus an additional premium of $1,836.00 (per year) to Kaiser. 2 years ago I fell from a water tank and broke my neck. The cost of the surgery was $114,000. One week in the hospital (2 titanium rods and 8 screws in my neck). I paid a total of $500.00. I'm not complaining. So here you have it. Bits and pieces on health care. Kind of boring?
bernie1936— I have never heard a story about a broken neck that was "boring." -:)
No, your commentary sheds light on several big parts of the problem. Waste, fraud, too much paperwork, unnecessary surgeries, unneeded tests, duplications in coverages . . . but anybody who thinks, "I know! Let's have a massive Federal Bureaucracy take over!" Well, lest I say anything unkind I'd best not say anything at all. Let's just say, I'm agin it. :D
Thanks very much for adding new information to the thread that is enlightening.
I hope that you didn't take my remarks personally, James. I think I came on stronger than I intended. I just get disgusted that so much falls on the middle class while the rich don't have to worry and the poor gets everything for free. I have one daughter who has to pay big time everytime she needs to take her kids to the doctor (because she can't afford the healthcare premiums) and one who gets it all for free (because she hasn't ever learned to work hard for anything). Uncle Sam is getting ready to shell out big bucks for the c-section delivery of my next grandson, making it easier to have a baby than it should be.
Since we already have socialized medicine for the poor, how can we fix that so that the government is not burdened with staggering Medicaid bills and the middle class can enjoy some peace of mind in life? Let us say that if the government did start an insurance program to provide healthcare for all that made insurance affordable for the middle class, is it unreasonable to assume that at some point it might be privatized like some services are that used to be government controlled?
Under the circumstances, I think Florida has done a decent job of taking on Citizens (the state controlled homeowners insurance for those who aren't familiar with it). I haven't been in Florida much for the past year, but as a currently licensed Florida Realtor for the past 6 years, I never heard many complaints about the services of Citizens, only the whole mess in general. For ourselves, we started out years ago with JUA (pre-Citizens) and quite soon ended up with a private company as we were rotated out. Admittedly, I know very little about the financial end of that operation, so am not sure if it is solvent or relies greatly on the state for its continued existence. I do know that Floridians were at least paying a competitive rate into it and not getting it for free or paying extra so that others were not getting it for free.
Connie— I didn't take it personally. Not at all. You are a very nice Lady.
It is within the realm of possibility that it could be nationalized now and privatized later. But not many government programs go away once they are started.
In 2007, more people moved out of Florida than moved in for the first time in history. I remember when UHaul and Ryder paid people to drive those trucks back up north some more folks could use them to come this way. The middle of the country seems to be getting a lot of new residents these days and for some good reasons.
All of your thoughts are of quality. We have to sort this out somehow. I don't think the government should have more power. I want it to have less. Thank you for your fine contributions to the thread. I appreciate you.
Thanks for your understanding, James, and your appreciation.
Anytime, Connie. You are welcome. au revoir!
Just to read something good about what is RIGHT with American health care check this out:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427
Hopefully our legislators will connect with many of the people they represent so that when they go back to Congress after the August recess, they will be better able to do their job of "representing" the people who sent them there.
I think that the tide is turning and people are beginning to realize the economics of providing "free" health care to everyone may be more than we can manage at the moment.
Better to fix what we have in place and bring down the costs. And we can certainly do that if cool heads prevail.
Open competition for insurance companies across state lines! And why not for all insurance...car, home as well as health? If the risks were spread out across larger numbers, the dollar amounts would generally fall. (That is after all, what the idea of a government system would do.)
Many of the states impacted with much more illegal immigration (for example) are affected much more adversely when it comes to paying for the ER visits that everyone (insured or not) can access.
What a mess! Hope we get this right!
Peggy,
That is a very interesting and factual article. Thank you. The Hoover Institute does fine work. I agree with your views on this subject (and others!). :D
I think the worm has turned. Thanks for visiting and leaving your always wise words.
James, I couldn't agree with you more. The Government taking over the health care system is a BAD idea! Health-Care is BIG business. The Government is in the mess it is in financially because they DO NOT KNOW HOW to run a business! So you are right, they will ration health-care! Many people will not get the care they need because it is expensive treatment, such as Cancer treatment, AIDS treatment, organ transplants, etc... This is exactly why they are going to be REQUIRING counseling about signing a DNR and encouraging Euthanasia. There are a lot of hidden disasters in it! READ MY HUB IT! http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Health-Care-Bill-And-W
Kebennett1— I have bookmarked your Hub on health care and the one on the "Death of Democracy." I will read both of them today.
We need far less government, not more. Seeing the terrible mess they have made of Medicare and Medicaid should give us a clue. They admit to a 15% fraud rate! Both of these programs should be abolished or at the least privatized.
Thank you for your always wise words.
You need to read my hub about how the Government will take you over to the point you will not be able to breathe. I had rather eat bread and branch water then to have some elected dumb person telling me where I can see the Dr. and what can be done. Folks you are sadly mistaken when you think this are free. You see the price you pay for Medicare on your paychecks now? Well it will triple at least when this goes into effect. Then you will pay over 50% of your paycheck for healthcare. I'm poor too. I have no cable or satellite TV. I have rabbit ears. I have dial up at $100. I make less than $23,000.00 a year but I doctor myself. I use herbs potions and go on the internet looking for potions. I don't get yearly exams, etc. I pay all my Dr. bills and refuse treatments that I can do without. Educate yourself on how to cure yourself. I've had bronchitis for two weeks and used Vicks salve, sugar, lemon, honey, vinegar, etc. To get myself well. I have faired just as well as someone that paid $900.00 for antibiotics, breathing treatments, etc. You can do for self. If the government gets this bill passed you will be paying insurance premiums through your IRS taxes. You will be told how to eat, breath, and sleep. Do you want to do for self or have the government in your everyday life taxing your sugar, grease (oil), carbs and anything else they can slap a tax on to get the money to run these new layers of government to control you? There is Medicaid, Medicare, and all kinds of aid that could be extended to cover you. Government is using this to control you. Wake up before it is too late.
Freedomvoice— I agree with every word you said. And I am grateful you chose this thread to make your statement.
I agree especially that there are plenty of ways for people to take care of themselves when they get sick. It's all right there on the internet. I haven't been to a doctor in 12 years. I didn't know how to set a broken collarbone. :)
It is all about control and power. You are so right on. It's an honor to meet someone as wise and learned as you. And I will go read your Hub right now. Thanks very much for coming by.
The government isn't some separate entity. We elect them, they represent us. They are held responsible by the people.
Health insurance is great when you aren't denied coverage. Why do Health Insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield deny coverage to patients while the CEO makes 100,000 an hour?
I think that a total free market, as in everyone pay their own bills would be the only way the prices of medical care could ever come down, but obviously this will never happen. Even if everyone had health insurance they could still be denied treatment if the insurance company decided they don't want to pay for it. There is no perfect solution when insurance companies are only in the business of profiting even when they claim to be non-profit. As for Walmart...they buy Life Insurance Policie s on their employees and name themselves as the beneficiaries...l don't think they'd be interested in providing these employees with health care that would lengthen their lives..sometimes you need to do a little more research.
bdecourcey09— I appreciate your comments. I suppose everyone sees through the lens of their own experience. I had a company for 14 years and we provided health insurance for all of our employees and never once did we have coverage denied for anyone. I don't know about $100,000 an hour, but whatever the CEOs make, I don't think they make as much as entertainers and athletes. I don't think insurance companies claim to be non-profit. Oh contraire! Every company in America is for profit. That is what capitalism is all about. But you have to perform to make profit. That's why many businesses fail.
I thank you for reading and leaving your insightful comments. Welcome to HubPages.
Not sure how I missed this hub before James. Nothing I can say to add to it. Everything has already been spoken long ago.
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Control of the people must come first.
SirDent— Welcome my old friend. It is always a pleasure to see your face in my threads. Yes, the Mark of the Beast will follow. Stay tuned. Thank you for your comments.
Noticed a headline on the MSN homepage and thought I would share the link here. It is very interesting indeed.
SirDent— Sorry it took me so long to see your comment. I just got home from two weeks in Israel. I read this article and I agree with the critics—both the "religious fundamentalists" and the Orwellians. Thanks for sharing the link with us, brother.
I figured you were gone somewhere. How was the trip?
SirDent— It was amazing! I stood on ground where Abraham, Elijah, David, Solomon, Jesus and the Apostles stood. I will be writing about it soon after I get the photos from the group. There were 16 of us traveling together. I'm still in the twilight zone. Maybe it's jet lag. :D
You better watch out for the twilight zone. I am glad you enjoyed your trip.
SirDent— Thank you so much for your ongoing encouragement, my brother. I appreciate you!
Thinking out loud says:
6 months ago
One point, just because the govt sets the rate at what they will pay, It isn't necessarily what you will pay. Most hospitals will bill you the automatic 20% the govt Doesn't pay for. On top of that, the hosp will bill you for any other items such as a secondary anesteologist and any other doctors that come in and check in on you. You probably don't even know who these people are, or why they are there. I've been through this three times in the past four years, and I can tell you they do not back down. the minute you question this practice or demand to know what these extra people actually had to do with your care, they send your bill to a collection agency and their case is closed. Trust me, you will end up paying.